Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: FaeLLe on August 02, 2024, 02:54:11 pm
-
That was a long-winded challenge - they must have lost the will to live and given up.
It isn't a shared use bay as we said - it's a charging bay that accommodates disabled drivers.
-
Thanks for the inputs everyone. Council has cancelled the PCN a few weeks ago.
Response from council: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BnzOe0LlKGlGnYGrn2YPC63QhxsnD3bJ/
Representations made:
We am writing to you today to make submissions regarding the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to the registration number VRM, on 02 AUGUST 2024.
The alleged contravention stated within the PCN did not occur. The PCN was issued incorrectly for the reasons outlined below.
The PCN was issued under contravention code 87, alleging that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a permit. However, the driver of the vehicle had sufficient authority granted to them to park in the alleged parking bay where the contravention was said to have occurred.
The vehicle was parked in a dual-use bay that is designated both for use by electric vehicles for charging and for disabled users. The driver of the vehicle parked within the bay using entitlements permitted to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) currently effective at the location, it states:
"The driver of a vehicle shall not permit it to wait in a reserved bay within a parking place unless the bay has been specifically reserved (as indicated by a sign or other writing) for his or her particular class of vehicle or person."
Since the vehicle to which the PCN was issued is an electric vehicle, the vehicle in question qualifies under the provisions allowed by the TRO as the bay is permitted to be used by electric vehicles.
Therefore, the PCN issued under contravention code 87 is not applicable to the circumstances in which the vehicle was parked.
Furthermore, if the bay has any other intended usage beyond what is clearly indicated, the registered keeper submits that the signage and road markings are insufficient and potentially misleading to drivers. Proper signage is crucial to ensure that drivers are fully aware of any restrictions in place and comply with any relevant parking requirements.
Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. I have attached relevant documentation in the form photographs to support my appeal.
- The first attachment clearly shows the PCN was issued in a vehicle where EV's are entitled to park (by virtue of council signage).
- The second picture shows the relevant bay under discussion when it is empty; this demonstrates the shared-use nature of the parking bay.
I look forward to your prompt response and trust that this matter will be resolved in a fair and just manner.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Registered Keeper
-
IMO no.
All signs and markings do is to give notice to drivers of provisions(restrictions) within an Order. They cannot invent restrictions which are not underpinned by an Order.
-
It's not a shared use bay, it's a bay with conflicting markings and signs, which conflict is NOT resolved by reference to the Ts and Cs board.
The sign is clear: electric vehicle parking - only while charging.
So if it's not charging?
Then as regards the sign it's not complying. In which case code 71 applies:
71 Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during restricted hours without charging. Off-street car parks.
And the order doesn't refer to electric vehicles*(why would it, it's dated 2005), I'm surprised it doesn't refer to chariots.
*- or electronic payments!
So if the TRO doesn't refer to specific conditions for parking bays can they be enforced through only signs for PCN's issued under TMA 2004?
-
Council evidence has been made available on the portal now. Please help indicate if this changes anything.
(https://i.imgur.com/luu2q3R.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mVbr0UM.jpg)
-
Thanks for all the advice to date. Since I recently lost my job, I have been struggling to find a new one and got distracted.
Appreciate a review of the appeal below,
I am writing to formally appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle, registration number [Vehicle Registration Number], on [Date of PCN]. The PCN was issued under contravention code 87, alleging that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled bay without displaying a permit. However, I believe this PCN was issued incorrectly for the reasons outlined below.
The vehicle was parked in a dual-use bay that is designated both for use by electric vehicles for charging and for disabled users. The driver of the vehicle parked within the bay using entitlements permitted to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) currently effective at the location, it states:
"The driver of a vehicle shall not permit it to wait in a reserved bay within a parking place unless the bay has been specifically reserved (as indicated by a sign or other writing) for his or her particular class of vehicle or person."
As an electric vehicle, the vehicle in question qualifies under the provisions allowed by the TRO as the bay is permitted to be used by electric vehicles. Therefore, the PCN issued under contravention code 87 is not applicable to the circumstances in which the vehicle was parked.
Furthermore, if the bay has any other intended usage beyond what is clearly indicated, the registered keeper submits that the signage and road markings are insufficient and potentially misleading to drivers. Proper signage is crucial to ensure that drivers are fully aware of any restrictions in place and comply with any relevant parking requirements.
Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. I have attached relevant documentation and photographs to support my appeal.
I look forward to your prompt response and trust that this matter will be resolved in a fair and just manner.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
OP, the markings, signs and the noticeboard conditions posted are a mess.
The contravention did not occur. You accept that you parked in a signed electric vehicles only bay and were not charging, in which case the contravention should refer to electric vehicles.
There is no basis for the council to claim that you parked in a disabled bay - while it was in force- because there is no signage to this effect.
It stands to reason that 'electric vehicles ONLY - while charging' is unambiguous and does not allow vehicles displaying a BB to park.
-
I wouldn't worry about technicalities at the first informal challenge and just go with the obvious appearance of it being a charging bay that also accommodates disabled drivers and the advice given to you concerning the inoperative charger.
-
As is the PCN where it states at the top of page 1: 'Woking Borough Council as agents Acting for Surrey County Council', and then on page 2: 'Enforcement Authority..where the contravention occurs on street Woking Borough Council act as agent for Surrey County Council'.
So, who is the enforcement authority given that the first statement is not conditional or limited but contradicts the subsequent reference?
A PCN must state the enforcement authority.
Please could help me understand this point. Is the PCN not allowed to be written in the form it currently is?
And the order doesn't refer to electric vehicles*(why would it, it's dated 2005), I'm surprised it doesn't refer to chariots.
*- or electronic payments!
What legal point can you quote to support the fact that a valid TRO is required to enforce a PCN?
Is there a relevant TC case or judicial review that I can rely on please.
-
As an electric vehicle owner with personal experience in charging, I prefer home charging for its convenience and cost benefits, especially with a solar setup and no VAT so I understand that dual-use bays can be confusing for new EV drivers.
In this case, the driver wasn't charging due to a malfunctioning charging point. Woking has two options here:
They could adopt a strict approach and enforce the penalty notice, arguing that without charging, the vehicle is improperly parked in a disabled bay. This would be a rigid application of the rules.
Alternatively, they could demonstrate flexibility and cancel the penalty notice, recognising that the driver did not charge due to an out-of-service charging point and made an effort to seek assistance.
I recommend appealing this decision. It's worth seeing how Woking responds, as they might show some leniency given the circumstances. Be ready to assert your position—this case presents a strong argument.
-
It's not a shared use bay, it's a bay with conflicting markings and signs, which conflict is NOT resolved by reference to the Ts and Cs board.
The council will argue the toss, but IMO would lose at adjudication if it got that far.
So what exactly are the markings and sign supposed to mean?
The sign is clear: electric vehicle parking - only while charging.
So if it's not charging?
Then as regards the sign it's not complying. In which case code 71 applies:
71 Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during restricted hours without charging. Off-street car parks.
What they have no basis for doing is claiming that despite the sign making no reference on this point, the markings mean that the bay is available to BB holders(on what terms I've no idea) and therefore the appropriate grounds are as in the PCN.
IMO total nonsense.
As is the PCN where it states at the top of page 1: 'Woking Borough Council as agents Acting for Surrey County Council', and then on page 2: 'Enforcement Authority..where the contravention occurs on street Woking Borough Council act as agent for Surrey County Council'.
So, who is the enforcement authority given that the first statement is not conditional or limited but contradicts the subsequent reference?
A PCN must state the enforcement authority.
And yet SCC state:
Parking enforcement and fines
The changes to enforcement
Since 1 April 2023, on street parking enforcement in Surrey has been carried out by NSL, working on our behalf (Surrey County Council). Prior to that date it was carried out by the borough and district councils, on our behalf, and they continue to carry out parking enforcement in their car parks.
What a total f*****g shambles.
And the order doesn't refer to electric vehicles*(why would it, it's dated 2005), I'm surprised it doesn't refer to chariots.
*- or electronic payments!
-
Upon reviewing your photograph of the entire parking bay, it is apparent that it serves a dual purpose as both an electric vehicle charging bay and a disabled parking bay.
You mentioned the electric vehicle charger was inoperative, and the PCN indicates you were fined for parking in a disabled bay without displaying a badge.
You have grounds to appeal.
Despite parking in the designated electric vehicle charging bay, the charger was regrettably not operational, leading to the unfortunate penalty for parking in a disabled bay.
Given the faulty charger, I consulted the security staff. I enquired whether I needed to move my vehicle, and the staff said that, since the charger was not working, I did not need to move my car because it was an electric vehicle.
I paid the parking fee and obtained a pay & display ticket. However, upon returning to my vehicle, I discovered a Penalty Charge Notice affixed to it.
-
Thanks everyone. I will draft a letter of representation and come back to all of you.
Put the draft here for comment before sending.
-
Thanks everyone. I will draft a letter of representation and come back to all of you.
-
I think the dual bays are supposed to be restricted to disabled drivers also charging EVs but could be wrong and the signage is not adequate if so.
You certainly have several points to challenge on.
---------
By the way, pics are not needed to enforce contraventions but if they took pics there is no reason not to send them. Westminster puts its pics online like many councils.
+1
The signs are totally inadequate.
-
I think the dual bays are supposed to be restricted to disabled drivers also charging EVs but could be wrong and the signage is not adequate if so.
You certainly have several points to challenge on.
---------
By the way, pics are not needed to enforce contraventions but if they took pics there is no reason not to send them. Westminster puts its pics online like many councils.
-
Picture of the empty bay
(https://i.imgur.com/uJCiT62.jpeg)
-
Contact Woking and ask for the CEO's pictures.
They have written to me and confirmed they are not required to do so by law and CEO notes are sufficient.
This is the same stance adopted by City of Westminster Council.
It seems like the position some of them are adopting now, I have seen some other posts where this has been observed:/
-
Contact Woking and ask for the CEO's pictures.
-
Although I have no training in motoring law, the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) you mentioned states that you parked in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge.
However, the photograph of your car in the parking bay clearly shows that you were parked in an electric vehicle charging bay, not a disabled bay.
Therefore, you have grounds to appeal, as the alleged breach of parking in a disabled bay did not take place.
-
A dual-use charging-disabled bay features the orange disabled logo painted on it.
What are the legal grounds to dispute that? The council could argue that the requirement for charging while parking is shown on the sign board.
The actual bay as seen on other floors is a diagonal line running through it which shows a green shaded EV sign on the top left corner and a Blue shaded disabled bay parking in the bottom right.
Where is the requirement for an orange disabled bay stated as a requirement please?
-
You may appeal the ticket because you parked in a green electric charging bay, not a blue disabled bay.
A dual-use charging-disabled bay features the orange disabled logo painted on it.
-
It looks like Woking council refrains from giving evidence of PCNs issued as there is no legal requirement to do so (this is just like the City of Westminster who has confirmed this to me in writing).
Any council pics?
What signage also makes it a disabled bay - this looks unusual.
-
I understand this may not directly assist with your appeal, but I draw on my experience in Kingston upon Thames, specifically at the charging points on Union Street.
On one occasion, I encountered a faulty charger, and I still connected it to my car. The enforcement officer, not realising the car wasn't charging, refrained from issuing a ticket. However, I recognise that failing to charge the vehicle does attract a penalty.
From your photograph, it's clear the bay in question is not a disabled bay. In fact, the penalty for displaying a disabled badge while parked at a charger without actively charging is the same as parking in a loading bay without loading.
It's uncommon to see a charging bay also designated as a disabled bay, and from your picture, it doesn't appear to be one of those dual-use parking spaces, apart from disabled badges, to need a ticket.
-
By way of information, TSRGD has no legal effect off-street.
-
Any council pics?
What signage also makes it a disabled bay - this looks unusual.
-
I need some help please with regards to an appeal for an off-street car park which seems to be regulated under the
Pictures at: https://imgur.com/a/rIohw7K
Evidence from Local Authority is not available since it seems not to be updated on the website. I hope to share this at a later date.
The PCN seems to have been issued under TMA 2004. As far as I know, the relevant order is WOKING BOROUGH COUNCIL (OFF-STREET PARKING PLACES) (PAY AND DISPLAY AND PAY ON FOOT ON EXIT) ORDER 2005 (hereafter referred to as the 'Relevant Order' or 'TRO').
I cannot locate Schedule 1 of this order to confirm the covered parking locations .
CONTEXT
The driver entered "Victoria Place Car Park" in Woking and entered the 'Red ' parking zone by entering a barrier.
Upon entering the building, a blue sign (with a lot of small fine print) stated parking charges without details of legislation or penalties.
No further signs regarding restrictions were displayed before entering the 'Red zone,' upon reaching the barrier, the CCTV read the vehicle's registration mark and opened the barrier.
The driver drove up to the second floor (after entering the Red zone with a barrier) and saw a shared-use bay for Electric Vehicle charging and Disabled users.
The vehicle was an EV, so the driver parked in the bay and noticed that the charge point was not working (it failed to charge the vehicle and did not have a solid green light compared to the EV chargers on other floors).
The EV charger had a sign on it that said, "EV charges apply from 04 March 2024" (irrelevant, I think, but I included this fact for completeness).
Since the charger was not working, the driver gave up and went to the mall security staff. They inquired about the need to move the car but were told the vehicle needed not to be moved as it was an EV, and charging was not possible.
However, I believe the same agent went straight up to the car and issued a PCN code 87 (parking in a designated disabled bay without displaying a permit).
The driver paid the parking charge before walking to the car and seeing the PCN on the windshield.
Any thoughts on this PCN please. What could be grounds for appeal, please?
FEEDBACK REQUESTED - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
I believe it should not be enforceable because of the following,
1. No marking for EV bay in the Relevant Order - deception/entrapment of driver?
2. PCN code issued incorrectly, should be code 71, EV not charging.
3. PCN not valid Shared use bay for EV charging and Disabled bay but driver could not charge as bay not operational (proof of no light on device demonstrates this as compared to EV chargers on other floors)
4. Condition to charge EV when using bay not enforceable as this condition was not agreed or shown to the driver before they entered the mall (blue sign at the entrance does not state this condition, it is only shown by a Red sign at the bay)
5. Signs are not compliant with TSRG 2016
6. Driver was misled by mall service staff (I will try to get CCTV proof of this through SAR)
The driver used provisions allowed to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the TRO which indicates the vehicle was reserved for a vehicle of their class (Electric Vehicle). The paragraph is quoted below for convenience,
"(g) The driver of a vehicle shall not permit it to wait in a reserved bay within a
parking place unless the bay has been specifically reserved (as indicated
by a sign or other writing) for his or her particular class of vehicle or
person."
Other information I believe is relevant,
- Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is stationary in circumstances in which any of the offences specified under "Traffic Management Act 2004 c. > SCHEDULE 7 > Part 1 > Parking contraventions outside Greater London > Paragraph 4"; this requires compliance with TSGRD 2016.
- Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances may make the order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal.
- Since this was a dual-use bay for EV charging, an observation period should have been maintained but not performed on this occasion. This was a procedural impropriety.
PCN FRONT
(https://i.imgur.com/pmVStFO.jpeg)
PCN REAR
(https://i.imgur.com/OtXBFQW.jpeg)
SIGN AT ENTRANCE
(https://i.imgur.com/JjhnAAy.jpeg)
PARKING LOCATION UNDER DISCUSSION
(https://i.imgur.com/7lyfyXK.jpeg)