Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mitaab on May 28, 2024, 02:42:32 am
-
Hi
Attached is a confirmation from Auxillis regarding the cancellation of the £60 admin fee charges for the PCN.
Many thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dear H C Andersen,
You are brilliant!
Just to let you know that all your effort and contribution in this post bore fruit!
My appeal grounds consisted of three points: 1) the contravention did not occur (CPZ MA control zone), 2) I was not the owner (Transfer of Liability: Athlon - Auxillis - I) and 3) Procedural Impropriety (unreasonable long time taken to process the PCN).
The adjudicator commenced the hearing by immediately addressing the second ground. He did not sound keen on the other two points. He said that “the LA has failed to establish the Transfer of Liability between Athlon and Auxillius. The LA merely accepted the words of Athlon without verifying their claim with evidence. Hence the breakdown in the chain”.
He commended me (YOU) for the thorough explanation and the technical references that I (You) used to support my claim. Consequently, and without hesitation he allowed the appeal and cancelled the PCN.
On that point, I wish to express my gratitude to you for your help and your perseverance with me.
Finally, I would like to also thank “Incandescent” for his earlier informative contribution!
-
IMO, if you are adamant that you did not pass the required CPZ gateway signs on your route to the location and you want to present this then do so. As far as I know you cannot prove this, it's your assertion, but it's one which you made in your reps and which has been ignored in the NOR which instead goes on at length with a cut-and-paste recitation of the purpose of CPZs and how they should be signed. It appears that the authority haven't presented evidence for the adjudicator either.
There's a further procedural impropriety in the NOR in that contrary to regulations the authority did not advise you that, subject to conditions, you could apply to the adjudicator to register an appeal after the expiry of the 28-day period*. In fact the NOR reinforces this as an absolute limit by stating that once they have served a Charge Certificate 'you would have missed the opportunity to appeal'.
As I understand it, the adjudicator's power in this regard is not subject to whim of the authority's administrative processes.
And it's the authority's evidence that Athlone's NTO was cancelled on the grounds that they were a hire company and the car was subject to a hiring agreement.
And you've now reinforced the point that you did not hire the car, your insurer did.
* 6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,
(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made,
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
-
If the argument of contravention did not occur won't fly, then don't make it.
Why wouldn't fly? The council provided in their Evidence Pack, two photos showing entry signs for the 'CPZ MA'. But according to the zone boundary map, there should exist another entry sign for the traffic coming from Chichele Road towards the A5. But there is none.
-
IMO, you won't fail at adjudication, in fact their NoR is one of the most bland responses I've read for some time, totally devoid of reasoning and on this point alone you'd probably succeed.
Do you still hold this opinion?
I think I am also going to use the sentence, ‘The NoR is totally devoid of reasoning’. But how do I support this statement?
-
They can call this document what they like but IMO you were simply the driver, not the hirer. IMO, you came into possession of this car pursuant to an agreement between your insurer and Auxilis, not you and Auxilis.
I have located the first email, please find link below, that I received from Auxillis in which they confirm that my insurance company have asked them to provide me with a replacement car (hire vehicle). This supports your argument that the agreement is between my insurance company and Auxillis.
https://ibb.co/pj87pLzk
Also, for your perusal, the following is the Reps and their Notice of Acceptance for Athlon and Auxillis respectively:
Athlon Reps
https://ibb.co/1GCGtt0K
Council’s NoA of Athlon’s Reps
https://ibb.co/ccmn9W6D
Auxillis Reps
https://ibb.co/dJpZQvLS
Council’s NoA of Auxillis Reps
https://ibb.co/gLJ8gD8n
-
If the argument of contravention did not occur won't fly, then don't make it.
But I did sign their document titled ‘Hire Agreement’, which I uploaded in this post. Auxillis provided this document in support of their representations to the Council.
Of course they did, but in order to have an agreement you must have a contract which must have prescribed elements: offer; acceptance; consideration.
They did not offer hire terms to YOU, they offered them to your insurer.
Therefore you did not accept these terms, your insurer did.
And you didn't pay, your insurer did.
They can call this document what they like but IMO you were simply the driver, not the hirer. IMO, you came into possession of this car pursuant to an agreement between your insurer and Auxilis, not you and Auxilis.
-
With regard to the CPZ sign, how do I approach this, taking into account the LA new photos and their associated arguments which they stated in their Summary?
By the way, they did not provide this information in the PCN or the NoR.
-
There was no hire agreement because you did not contract with Auxilis, your insurer did.
But I did sign their document titled ‘Hire Agreement’, which I uploaded in this post. Auxillis provided this document in support of their representations to the Council.
-
1) How do you know that there was no 'hiring agreement' between Athlon and Auxillis?
According to the authority's evidence. the vehicle was on long-term lease. This is their evidence!
Which requirement under the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act that Auxillis did not satisfy?
There was no hire agreement because you did not contract with Auxilis, your insurer did.
3) Do I not include the reference to the parking regulation:
This simply refers to the RTOA which the adjudicator would already know. I don't think anything more needs to be added in this regard, but feel free to do so.
-
Very impressive! Many thanks.
Questions:
However, the council in this case have not provided any evidence that these were the grounds cited or their reasons for acceptance, but I suggest that this can be reasonably inferred from their summary. In these circumstances I submit that it was not open to the council to pursue any party other than Athlone as the registered keeper and presumed owner because no 'hiring agreement' was in effect between them and their lessee, Auxilis.
1) How do you know that there was no 'hiring agreement' between Athlon and Auxillis?
In addition to the above, as regards Auxilis the only contract which existed as regards the hire of the vehicle was between them and ****, my insurer. As their Ts and Cs make clear, my possession of the vehicle was subject to the 'Company's' direction, not mine. I submit that while they use the term Hire Agreement, this was for their convenience only and did not satisfy the requirements under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act and therefore the regulations.
2) Which requirement under the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act that Auxillis did not satisfy?
3) Do I not include the reference to the parking regulation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
-
Then IMO the grounds of 'I am not the owner' apply.
Sir,
PCN *********
My grounds of appeal are as follows:
I was not the owner;
Contravention did not occur. ( if you want to, I rather got lost with the arguments here)
As regards the first grounds, I hope it would be helpful if I set out the various parties in these events.
Athlone - registered keeper of the vehicle and a leasing company;
Auxilis - lessee of the vehicle on, as the council states, a 'long term lease' and who also operate as a vehicle hire company;
******* - my insurance company who use Auxilis to provide insured parties with substitute vehicles while they undertake repairs;
Me - an insured party of **** and also the driver of the vehicle VRM **** which I had in my possession having been provided with this by Auxilis pursuant to a contract between them and *****.
Each of the above parties was served with a NTO issued by the authority.
NTO 1 - issued on ***** to Athlone. As the case summary states, they made representations to the effect that they were a hire company. These were accepted by the authority who then issued a NTO to Auxilis who were named as the 'hirer' pursuant to a 'hire agreement'.
NTO 2 - issued to Auxilis on **** to which they made the representations on the same grounds i.e. that they were a vehicle hire company and that I had entered into a hire agreement with them accepting liability for such matters as penalty charges.
NTO 3 - issued on ***** to me on the basis that I was considered the 'owner' for the purposes of the Traffic Management Act and regulations.
I submit that I cannot be considered the 'owner' for these purposes for the following reasons and that no liability for the penalty falls to me.
It is clear that Athlone are not a vehicle hire company and there is no hire agreement between them and Auxilis. In support, I would respectfully refer you the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators 2022-2023, page 13 which dealt specifically with the issue of 'Transfer of Liability'.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf
In the report he made clear (and referred to legal authorities in support of his view) that it was not open to an authority to accept representations on the grounds of 'd)the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a hiring agreement,'
in case where leases for longer than 6 months apply. Instead, he stated that a registered keeper could rebut the presumption of ownership based upon a lease being in effect which would achieve the necessary degree of permanence regarding transfer of responsibility for the vehicle.
However, the council in this case have not provided any evidence that these were the grounds cited or their reasons for acceptance, but I suggest that this can be reasonably inferred from their summary. In these circumstances I submit that it was not open to the council to pursue any party other than Athlone as the registered keeper and presumed owner because no 'hiring agreement' was in effect between them and their lessee, Auxilis.
In addition to the above, as regards Auxilis the only contract which existed as regards the hire of the vehicle was between them and ****, my insurer. As their Ts and Cs make clear, my possession of the vehicle was subject to the 'Company's' direction, not mine. I submit that while they use the term Hire Agreement, this was for their convenience only and did not satisfy the requirements under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act and therefore the regulations.
In light of the above, I ask that my appeal be allowed.
You need to fill in gaps.
Some thoughts and wait for others.
-
Trying to get to the bottom of this is proving very difficult.
When is your hearing? You might need to apply for postponement.
As I now understand matters:
Athlone are the registered keeper. Theirs is the NTO referred to in the authority's summary (you questioned this date but you were confusing it with the NTO to Auxilis).
Athlone and Auxilis have a standard agreement with the former being the registered keeper and lease company, the latter(Auxilis) being a hire company.
Now it gets murky, but I think the following is correct..
You have a car(nothing to do with this issue directly) which for some reason was involved in an accident and your unknown insurance company arranged for Auxilis to provide a vehicle to you.
This was the vehicle involved in the contravention and it came into your possession solely because your insurer paid Auxilis to do so.
PCN - to you. Unsuccessful reps.
First NTO - to Athlone who made reps to 'transfer liability', presumably 'we are a hire company and hirer(Auxilis) has signed an agreement accepting liability etc.
Authority accept these reps and serve NTO no. 2 on Auxilis as hirer.
They then make reps on grounds they are a hire company.
These are accepted.
You receive NTO no. 3
You make unsuccessful reps.
Your insurer pays the bill for the hire costs associated with your possession of the car.
Is this correct??
Spot on! Absolutely correct.
I have called the tribunal, and the hearing has been postponed to 24th Feb 25. But they tell me that I need to submit my final appeal 5 days before the hearing.
-
Trying to get to the bottom of this is proving very difficult.
When is your hearing? You might need to apply for postponement.
As I now understand matters:
Athlone are the registered keeper. Theirs is the NTO referred to in the authority's summary (you questioned this date but you were confusing it with the NTO to Auxilis).
Athlone and Auxilis have a standard agreement with the former being the registered keeper and lease company, the latter(Auxilis) being a hire company.
Now it gets murky, but I think the following is correct..
You have a car(nothing to do with this issue directly) which for some reason was involved in an accident and your unknown insurance company arranged for Auxilis to provide a vehicle to you.
This was the vehicle involved in the contravention and it came into your possession solely because your insurer paid Auxilis to do so.
PCN - to you. Unsuccessful reps.
First NTO - to Athlone who made reps to 'transfer liability', presumably 'we are a hire company and hirer(Auxilis) has signed an agreement accepting liability etc.
Authority accept these reps and serve NTO no. 2 on Auxilis as hirer.
They then make reps on grounds they are a hire company.
These are accepted.
You receive NTO no. 3
You make unsuccessful reps.
Your insurer pays the bill for the hire costs associated with your possession of the car.
Is this correct??
-
Hi
Attached is the Hire Agreement I signed with Auxillis.
I would very much appreciated if you could draft my final appeal statement, three points:
CPZ sign, prolonge time taken and the vehicle ownership.
Thanks in anticipation.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's not procedural impropriety, it's 'I was not the owner'.
The 'owner' is a term defined in the Act and regs. It has nothing to do with ownership in the normal sense of the word, it's a legal construction.
As I understand it, you were not the owner at the material time because you were not 'P' because there was no hiring agreement, as defined, and you were not the hirer of the car.
-
But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am not liable.
Here!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
Much obliged!
In 6(2)(b), the person (“P”) is Auxillis, correct? If so, it does not make any reference to the driver (me) not being liable.
I don't know whether Auxillis had signed with Athlon a statement of liability acknowledging liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any road traffic contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement. But I signed with Auxillis such statement.
Please bear with me. I am trying to understand the nitty-gritty of this so that I am prepared to argue my case before the adjudicator.
So all these people who hire cars from companies who are not really a hire company, pay the PCNs because the hirer got them to sign a statement of liability, and LAs accepted the hirer Reps when technically they should not.
If I win the appeal on procedural impropriety, then the LA cannot chase back Auxillis because they have already accepted their Reps.
-
after I signed some paperwork.
What was this paperwork?
Were you given a copy?
Hi John
I'll try to get a copy of it.
-
But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am not liable.
Here!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
-
after I signed some paperwork.
What was this paperwork?
Were you given a copy?
-
A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. According to what you say, it means that Athlon is the hire company, Auxillis is the hirer and I am the driver. How intriguing!
But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am not liable.
So, the LA made an error by accepting the Auxillis Reps, passing the parking liability onto me?
If that is the case, please what is the best way to present this to the adjudicator, and would the adjudicator be aware of this regulation?
-
The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
Pl explain. This muddies the water even more.
A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.
Will you pl explain who is who in this saga.
I will try. After the car accident my car insurance instructed (authorised) the hire company (Auxillis) to provide me with a replacement car while the insurance claim is dealt with. This is part of my insurance policy in case my car was not road worthy as a result of an accident. Auxillis then contacted me and arranged for the hire car after I signed some paperwork. I was not aware of or involved with Athlon (apparently the original keeper) at all.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need more clarification.
-
The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
Pl explain. This muddies the water even more.
A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.
Will you pl explain who is who in this saga.
-
Before going through this evidence pl confirm the nature of your hire agreement, it's important.
Thank you for coming back to me.
The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
-
Before going through this evidence pl confirm the nature of your hire agreement, it's important.
The grounds of 'we are a vehicle hire company' are invalid if the hire is for more than 6 months e.g. a lease etc. In this case their grounds are 'not the owner' because the lease provides sufficient permanence to your keepership as to make you, not them, 'keeper' in law. Sending a NTO to the registered keeper does NOT of itself mean they are the keeper for the purposes of enforcement because this is simply a presumption which in their case may be rebutted by production of a lease.
Whereas, for hire agreements (which are defined in law as being for a period of less than 6 months) the grounds of 'we are a vehicle hire company' apply.
So, hire(less than 6 months) or lease?
Edit- can't understand their evidence summary, they suggest that they received 2 sets of reps from Athlon!
In any event, IMO there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority. The NTO sent to you was invalid because the authority did not have the legal power to consider you as hirer and therefore liable pursuant to representations made by the registered keeper. This follows because the nature of your possession was subject to a long-term lease and therefore while the registered keeper could have argued that you were the 'owner' by virtue of you being considered the keeper due to the permanence of your possession, they could not seek to transfer liability based upon the vehicle being hired because no 'hiring agreement' exists.
I refer to the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2022-2023 page 13. https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf
“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;
-
Hi
I have received the evidence pack from the LA for the appeal. The following is their Summary argument and photos that they have not previously provided.
Summary_pg1:
https://ibb.co/7dYQhfVd
Summary_pg2:
https://ibb.co/ks4vkmdB
summary_pg3:
https://ibb.co/ZzckZ6P1
image_1:
https://ibb.co/4gwbPg7s
image_2:
https://ibb.co/s9XD1nv3
image_3:
https://ibb.co/2YYD8RwN
image_4:
https://ibb.co/jZMQY2xZ
I have to submit my final appeal and your advice and help is appreciated.
-
They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.
I think LA made a reference to this matter in the NoR, second page - bottom paragraph. I guess they will include any evidence relating to this in their Evidence Pack at the Appeal stage. Speaking of which, is it accepted that the LA might include new evidence in their Evidence Pack that they have not highlighted before?
By the way, I have not come across the "Notice of Acceptance" before. What purpose does it serve and when is issued?
Also, shall I accept the Evidence Pack by email, as per the LA request in their NoR?
I am submitting my Appeal shortly. What are the major points that I should base my appeal on.
Thank you in anticipation.
-
Thank you very much for your feedback.
For your info:
PCN Date of Issue: 16/02/24
My Informal Challenge: 18/03/24
NoR of Informal Challenge: 09/05/24
NtO to Hire Company: 29/07/24
Reps of Hire Company to LA: 01/08/24
NtO to Myself: 19/09/24
My Reps: 17/10/24
NoR of my Reps: 04/12/24
On the second page of the NoR of my Reps, and in the bottom paragraph, the LA made a false claim saying that the first NtO was sent to registered keeper (the vehicle hire company) on 10/06/24. But this is incorrect. The date of issue of the NtO is 29/07/24. Please see document below confirming this and also showing date on which the hire company made their Reps (01/08/24).
Can I use this discrepancy to my advantage when I make my appeal, and is it contravening any statutory guidance?
NtO to hire company:
https://ibb.co/7nJn0mw
Reps of hire company
https://ibb.co/zrGz82z
-
Finally, I have received an email from the rent company agreeing to me challenging the PCN,.....
What??
On this point this has nothing to do with the hire company so I wonder what the email states. Pl post.
IMO, you won't fail at adjudication, in fact their NoR is one of the most bland responses I've read for some time, totally devoid of reasoning and on this point alone you'd probably succeed.
As things stand:
They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.
And then whether any penalty could be demanded for want of the restriction being signed in accordance with their obligations.
-
They have not re-offered the discount, so it is now a total no-brainer to now register an appeal at London Tribunals.
As far as I can see, your main appeal point is that there was no CPZ sign giving the yellow line restrictions at any point on your journey to the parking location. Others have pointed out that this council have form in not having all the signs in place. You then have the secondary point of excessive delay in serving the Notice to Owner, (7 months). This is not as strong as one would want, because the first NtO would have been sent to the leasing company, so the 6 month period for serving of your NtO dates from the cancellation of the first NtO. So they issued it under 6 months but still a very extended interval. They still need to provide a reason for such delay to the adjudicator in issuing it if they have had regard to the Statutory Guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
-
Hi all
I have received the Notice of Rejection to my representations, as expected. Below copies of my Reps and their NoR. They have not provided any evidence to refute my claim regarding the no entry sign for the CPZ MA. When are they supposed to provide evidence to support their decision?
Your feedback and advice is much appreciated.
Representation:
https://ibb.co/hZC7hfh
NoR:
https://ibb.co/MZKD1pJ
https://ibb.co/FDtrtC5
https://ibb.co/KrLXKqM
https://ibb.co/drzwdGx
-
Another point I would like to use in my representations is that the date of issue of the PCN was 16/02/2024 and the date of issue of the NtO was 19/09/2024 which is more that seven months. Is this acceptable, even when taking into account the NtO that was sent first to the rent company? I would like to use this issue in my representations, but I don't know the legal reference that I can rely on.
A draft of the challenge would very much be appreciated.
-
Hi all,
I received the Notice to Owner from the LA, dated 19/09/2024.
As previously requested, I tootled through the route in question, and I can confirm that there is no entry sign for the CPZ MA!
So the GPS for 2022 is still valid, no change. I also took photos as well.
I have till Friday to submit my representations. It was suggested that I withhold photo evidence and use it later for the appeal stage should the PCN is not cancelled, which is the norm with the LA.
Another point I would like to use in my representations is that the date of issue of the PCN was 16/02/2024 and the date of issue of the NtO was 19/09/2024 which is more that seven months. Is this acceptable, even when taking into account the NtO that was sent first to the rent company? I would like to use this issue in my representations, but I don't the legal reference that I can rely on.
Finally, I have received an email from the rent company agreeing to me challenging the PCN, and that if I win the case they will waiver their £60 admin fee.
A draft of the challenge would very much be appreciated.
-
@mitaab as discussed, you must not make any more duplicate accounts or you will be banned permanently.
If you want to have any hope of beating this PCN, you need to act on the advice given above.
-
Isn't the VRM the same as the number plate? Providing this information, wouldn't it reveal the name and address of the person?
@mitaab reveal it to whom? The council has the VRM already and they can get the name and address from DVLA, the rest of us have no means of accessing the DVLA database, so it's not clear what point there is in hiding this information.
I would suggest you get photos of all the CPZ signs identified by Incandescent, who has done a sterling job of working out where the applicable signs are.
However you should not volunteer those photos in the representations, the burden is on the council to prove that the signs are there in the first place, you don't have to prove anything until the council discharges its burden of evidence.
As H C Andersen says, you need to speak to the hire company and get them to agree to transfer liability to you, they should have no reason to object as it means the PCN is no longer their problem.
-
Incandescent has done the hard work, but this could all be academic unless your hire company transfers liability to you.
IMO, your primary task is to get them onside* otherwise you'll get a bill for £130/£190 or more**.
*- discussing on the phone is less than concrete. You should write. (
by all means phone and confirm in writing, but I recommend you don't just phone).
**- the NTO would not offer the discount, so if they paid it the charge would be 130. Similarly, you have not said whether the £60 is applied whether they pay or seek to transfer liability, and as it's a charge for a service it's probably subject to VAT, so your total could be ££202.
As regards the contravention, you should look at this, the council's CPZ map.
https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s45982/10%20-%20parking_management_review_appendix_b.pdf
IMO, your approach should be that you were travelling northwards along Walm Road and apparently entered zone MA north of its junction with Melrose when you entered Chichele Road prior to turning right into Anson. A copy of the council's CPZ map is enclosed showing that zone MA commences at this point.
On the day of the contravention (and now..because you'll take photos) there wasn't a CPZ sign alerting motorists to this significant change in controls. And the change is significant because the restricted hours of zone MA are different to those in zone MW(the zone you left and the last CPZ sign which you saw) being Mon-Sat 10-9pm and 8am-6.30pm respectively for this MA zone - the authority will be aware that there are 2 different restrictions in zone MA, the other being 10am-3pm Mon-Fri.
..as a basis...
But IMO get the hire company onside first.
-
You need current signage at this cross roads.
There are no signs on the GSV view for entry to CPZ 'MA'
-
Incandescent, great analysis. Quite impressive.
Shall I get you recent photos of all the CPZ signs, that you made reference to, in your post?
I have added another word to my vocabulary, "tootling". :)
The main thing is that GSV 2022, shows no entry signs for CPZ 'MA' as ypu drive along that road, but is this the case in 2024 ? So yes, take some photos to use if you want to take the matter further. Of course if in 2024, the signs missing in 2022 are now there, your case collapses.
Which specific zone entries do you want photos for?
-
Incandescent, great analysis. Quite impressive.
Shall I get you recent photos of all the CPZ signs, that you made reference to, in your post?
I have added another word to my vocabulary, "tootling". :)
The main thing is that GSV 2022, shows no entry signs for CPZ 'MA' as ypu drive along that road, but is this the case in 2024 ? So yes, take some photos to use if you want to take the matter further. Of course if in 2024, the signs missing in 2022 are now there, your case collapses.
-
Incandescent, great analysis. Quite impressive.
Shall I get you recent photos of all the CPZ signs, that you made reference to, in your post?
I have added another word to my vocabulary, "tootling". :)
-
At your first left turn, you pass this sign
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ctFeijho1K44n2QN8
for CPZ 'G'
The back of the sign shows the "End of Zone" sign.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/doscfRfQGEaz5u5k7
If, while tootling along, you decide to turn off the main road into Strode Road, which is in another CPZ you see these signs. Note the restricted times are different to the first one you passed.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eH7BgAZ99WA6GWEX6
So the inference is that passing from one zone to another just requires an entry sign, there is no need for an exit sign as that is obvious.
And here, just before Park Avenue, are the CPZ entry signs for CPZ 'MW'
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6qWohtW22ixBx4af6
If you look on the back of the sign, you'll see the entry signs for the CPZ you've just left. However, tootling along you get to Walm Lane, (a right turn). If you turn the GSV view around, you'll see signs for entering CPZ 'MW'
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SEsH7qfNzY5Hmd4cA
So you would expect on the other side of these, a "Zone Ends" sign, or a sign for entering another CPZ. But there is no sign.
A look at a parking bay sign on t he left, shortly after passing Walm Lane tells you you are in CPZ 'MA' but there is no CPZ entry sign.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MZuKz5inJLct7nxx5
So, assuming GSV October 2022 is still correct, you have an appeal argument that you did not pass a CPZ entry sign for the zone shown on your PCN. Each CPZ can have different restricted times as shown above, so without passing a sign, how could you determine the restricted hours ?
-
@mitaab can you please draw us a map showing how you got to that particular SYL in the first place?
We can't form a definitive view of the strength of your case without this information, and also without the traffic order (which I can get hold of).
To this end, please can you post the original PCN leaving the number plate and VRM visible, as per the guidance (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/).
Hi cp8759
This link shows the route of my journey:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/McZpVvyZUPgzAQEX8
I have misplaced the PCN. How do I get a copy of it?
Isn't the VRM the same as the number plate? Providing this information, wouldn't it reveal the name and address of the person?
Look forward to hearing from you.
-
@mitaab can you please draw us a map showing how you got to that particular SYL in the first place?
We can't form a definitive view of the strength of your case without this information, and also without the traffic order (which I can get hold of).
To this end, please can you post the original PCN leaving the number plate and VRM visible, as per the guidance (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 you started at Willesden Green you were already in a CPZ.
In this area there are a large number of CPZs all together if you look at the Brent CPZ map. Hopefully, somebody on here can explain the sign guidance on where one CPZ butts up against another one. As far as I know, there should be signs at the boundaries between CPZs, but if the yellow line restrictions are the same, does there need to be a sign at the boundary ?
Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will comment.
-
HOwever, you've told us that just to get to the Notice to Owner stage, you have to pay the hire company £60, then you could have your reps rejected by the council. I think you have something called a dilemma !
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dilemma
I am hoping that with your help, I would win the appeal and get the PCN cancelled. This would encourage me to request a refund of the £60 as a good will gesture on the part of the hire company. This is what they told me over the phone.
Thank you for increasing my vocabulary! :)
-
Have a look on here: -
https://www.brent.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/where-you-can-park/controlled-parking-zones/cpz-map
There are definitely signs at the zone entrances I looked at, like here: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yfrMh71RaHnaq9hf8
and here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rP11qxhoH69MbTTz8
So best thing is to tell us your route to the location you parked at. If you can show that you did not pass a CPZ sign then you can submit reps on that basis.
The CPZ sign in your third link is completely at the other end of Anson Road, which is quite a distance from where I parked, and is not part of my journey.
I drove from Willesden Green along Chichele Rd, then turning right at the traffic light into Anson Road, parking next to house number 46. There was no CPZ sign at the Entry.
If there was a CPZ sign applicable to the entry of the zone where I parked, why didn't the traffic warden upload a photo of it on the their website along with the car photos?
-
Have a look on here: -
https://www.brent.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/where-you-can-park/controlled-parking-zones/cpz-map
There are definitely signs at the zone entrances I looked at, like here: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yfrMh71RaHnaq9hf8
and here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rP11qxhoH69MbTTz8
So best thing is to tell us your route to the location you parked at. If you can show that you did not pass a CPZ sign then you can submit reps on that basis. HOwever, you've told us that just to get to the Notice to Owner stage, you have to pay the hire company £60, then you could have your reps rejected by the council. I think you have something called a dilemma !
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dilemma
-
Incandescent, thank you for your feedback.
This is the GSV location of Anson Road where I parked. It is clear that there is no CPZ entry sign at all:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YREPV66zMxre32Nz7
The LA rejected my challenge without any supporting evidence.
-
Please read this and update your post accordingly
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/
Looking at their letter of rejection, the location is stated as "Anson Road (MA -Cpz), so it appears that you were parked in a CPZ. However, you say you weren't so you really need to check with Brent using their website, which should have their CPZs in there somewhere.
Assuming you were in a CPZ, means there would have been no signs by the yellow line, the yellow line restrictions are on the CPZ entry signs.
However, the real issue you have is that taking the matter further means the hire company will charge you £60 just for admin in responding to a Notice to Owner. So it is a matter of now paying £65 to Brent, or waiting for an NtO to turn up and paying the hire company £60 for the privilege. Having paid the hire company and got a Notice to Owner in your hand, you could submit representations.
The only other issue is inordinate delay. 3 months is far too long to respond to informal reps, although not actually unlawful, it is very bad practice by Brent.
Wait a bit for others to respond as they may see something I have missed.
-
Parked the car on a single-yellow line around 19:35. There was no sign plate adjacent to the yellow line stating any restrictions. The location was not within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and no sign of which existed for that zone. The PCN was placed on the wind screen.
On 18/03/2024 I submitted an informal challenge. However, after almost three months from submitting the informal challenge, I received their "Notice of Rejection of Informal Challenge". Is taking that long to respond to my challenge acceptable?
I did provide them with photo evidence showing that there was neither a restriction sign for the yellow line nor a CPZ sign. Even their photo evidence did not show the same.
I hired the car from a rent company. Going to the NTO stage means the rent company is going to charge me £60 in admin fee.
I would very much appreciate it if you could assist me with this PCN.
As I am allowed only 4 files per post, please see below my informal challenge:
"Please note that on the day in question, I parked on a single yellow line, in the evening. I looked for a road sign showing any prescribed hours or restricted time for the single yellow line where I parked, but there was none. As a result, I was left with a legitimate expectation that the single yellow line did not have a restriction at the time of my parking. Please find attached photos of the location where I parked confirming this fact. Please can you cancel the PCN."
Thank you in anticipation.
[attachment deleted by admin]