Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: yankyg on August 30, 2024, 01:33:06 pm
-
Thank you everyone for all your help. All closed and paid now.
-
IMO, a prospective PI as regards a prospective NTO is not grounds at this stage however one might try and shoe-horn this in.
IMO, if a NTO is received then this would be the time to raise the issue if it is apparent in the NTO and/or online.
-
Good evening,
I have received the below response from Haringey council. Sorry I couldn't find how to upload a pdf, and will try again if you require. They included a couple of photos that we have already seen. Please advise how I should proceed. Thank you very much for your help.
Dear *****
Penalty Charge Notice (parking ticket) number:ZN13555185
Date of contravention: 29 August 2024
Location: Wargrave Avenue, STH TOT (ST) CPZ
Vehicle registration: MC51OFZ
Thank you for writing to us.
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
There is a sign where you parked that explains that the bay you parked in is for people with a resident's permit.
You were issued a PCN for parking without a valid resident's permit. The Civil Enforcement Officer
(CEO) checked their handheld computer which showed no valid permit for your vehicle.
I have noted your comments. While I appreciate your concerns, it is important to note that the presence of clear and visible signage in the area is required by law, but the photographs taken by the CEO are not required to include the vehicle and the sign at the same time. The purpose of the photographs is to document the vehicle's position and any relevant aspects of the contravention. Both CEO notes and photos indicate where the vehicle was parked. Having reviewed CEO photos of the sign it appears the sign was visible and not obstructed.
Please be advised that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they read all signage and observe all road markings before parking to ensure they are in the intended location and that they adhere to the restrictions.
You can view photographic evidence of your case by using the Council’s Parking Ticket viewer
which you will find online at https://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking
You have these choices:
• You can pay the discount charge of £65.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of service of this letter.
• You can pay £130.00 within 28 days of the date your PCN was issued.
• You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner
will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued.
The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £130.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives.
How to pay:
• By internet: Go to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/payments and follow the online instructions.
• By telephone: At any time (Credit/Debit Cards only) on 0300 456 0520- Please have your
credit/debit card and Penalty Charge Number to hand when you make the call.
• In person: Take your PCN and payment to Haringey Vehicle Pound, Unit 1, 1 Waltham Park
Way, London, E17 5DU between Monday to Saturday 7am to 10pm and Sunday 8am to 8pm.
Please ensure you obtain a receipt.
Yours sincerely
Ms I Sosiuk
Parking Process Case Office
-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/jpqD1YtDNn2cu63h8
Thanks. For later.
-
Submission Successful. Thank you!
-
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: PCN ZN13555185 VRM MC51OFZ
I challenge the PCN on the ground that the signage is not fit for purpose.
Your photo evidence does not show my car parked near any sign.
Please cancel the PCN
Yours faithfully
*****************
Don't cite this; but a similar issue: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OPAoSU2TYodCZsIX8zDgQrxvkrqXkBBD
*****
My amended draft has probably not been seen?
-
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: PCN ZN13555185
I have received a PCN for parking in a residents permit bay without a valid permit. I would like to make a representation challenging the PCN on the grounds that the signage was obscured from view due to the council not placing correct signage and ensuring they are visible to drivers parking. This includes a post with no signage, an exceptionally overgrown tree that blocked the view of one sign, and a considerable distance - out of line of view - to the only other sign on the bay.
Please see the attached photo evidence in which it can be seen that in both directions of the parked car, there is no visible signage.
As it was impossible to see the signage due to lack of upkeep by the council, it is my opinion that the PCN was unfairly applied, and should be cancelled. I do not live in London, and therefore cannot be reasonably expected to infer parking restrictions from other areas in the borough.
Kind regards
-
As I said above, I'd suggest you draft a representation based on the signage and keep the website argument in reserve for the tribunal.
-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/jpqD1YtDNn2cu63h8
-
@Hippocrates just make up a bogus address, as long as you don't hit the "submit" button you can go through all the screens.
Haringey doesn't actually give you any grounds at all.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
Will be reading this all very carefully and updating you. Thanks so much.
I have posted the screenshots from the website. I hope they are what you have asked for.
Where are they please?
-
@Hippocrates just make up a bogus address, as long as you don't hit the "submit" button you can go through all the screens.
Haringey doesn't actually give you any grounds at all.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
Will be reading this all very carefully and updating you. Thanks so much.
I have posted the screenshots from the website. I hope they are what you have asked for.
I have noticed the PCN says that the car was observed from 11:20 to 11:26, but the first of the 18 attached photos is timed at 11:25am.
-
@Hippocrates just make up a bogus address, as long as you don't hit the "submit" button you can go through all the screens.
Haringey doesn't actually give you any grounds at all.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
-
@Hippocrates just make up a bogus address, as long as you don't hit the "submit" button you can go through all the screens.
Haringey doesn't actually give you any grounds at all.
-
Haringey's website does not provide the correct grounds of appeal, that is a basis on which appeals have been accepted by Michael Oliver, Teresa Brennan, Andrew Harman, Philippa Alderson, Henry Michael Greenslade, Jack Walsh, Gerald Styles and Carl Teper, @yankyg see the cases on rows 623 to 641 here (http://ttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037&range=A623).
@cp8759 What are the incorrect grounds as I have never been able to see them unless I type in address details?
@yankygI repeat my request to screenshot the page as mentioned above.
-
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:
1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;
This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.
Signage: I see no correlation between the sign and the car.
Re their website: go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please. This is important.
https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
It's a Regulation 9 PCN, so I would not expect to see the statutory appeal grounds on it. These would be on the Notice to Owner.
I agree; but, if they are going to put misinformation on the PCN, this is an issue. The PCN is the prima facie document from which all else flows. Also, when combined with cp8759's point re the website, this should be exploited as a P.I. They have omitted of their own volition the first ground.
-
IMO, I therefore suggest the obvious for which there exists physical evidence which is that the CEO's printer is a cog loose because it did not produce a complete readable PCN which contained the information and instructions mandated by the council- the most obvious aspect being that the payment slip was missing which also lead to parts of the council's information being omitted.
-
Haringey's website does not provide the correct grounds of appeal, that is a basis on which appeals have been accepted by Michael Oliver, Teresa Brennan, Andrew Harman, Philippa Alderson, Henry Michael Greenslade, Jack Walsh, Gerald Styles and Carl Teper, @yankyg see the cases on rows 623 to 641 here (http://ttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037&range=A623).
It is therefore worth taking this case to the tribunal in any event, but obviously you need to wait for the notice to owner first, then make formal representations, and then wait for the notice of rejection. The whole process is explained here (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appeals-process-explained).
In terms of what to put in the representations, in the first instance draft something based on the signage (we know this argument won't fly, but you need to put something in and you don't want to reveal your trump card at the informal representations stage). Put a draft on here in the first instance and we'll review it for you.
-
+1.
IMO, the authority are not required to state grounds of representation on a Reg. 9 PCN and I don't know what power authorises them to do so!
If they are neither required nor authorised then I cannot see how a PI would apply given that:
A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it .....
....
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) such a failure includes, in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than—
(a)in accordance with the conditions subject to which, or
(b)at the time or during the period when,
it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.
(my emphasis.)
But online grounds are different IMO because as regards making a challenge online the PCN instructs the recipient to follow online instructions
-
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:
1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;
This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.
Signage: I see no correlation between the sign and the car.
Re their website: go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please. This is important.
https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
It's a Regulation 9 PCN, so I would not expect to see the statutory appeal grounds on it. These would be on the Notice to Owner.
-
Well, actually there is this issue with the PCN:
1. This ground is missing: (a)the alleged contravention did not occur;
This is a procedural impropriety as it missing one important ground.
Signage: I see no correlation between the sign and the car.
Re their website: go to this link, put in your details and screenshot what grounds they come up with please. This is important.
https://haringey.tarantoportal.com/PCNs/PCN/MakeRepresentationBarbourLogic
-
Relatives were away! So I can't blame them at all. Good of them to give us their house! As soon as they heard about the PCN, they apologised, and told us where to find the permits. Thanks for all your help. Will wait to see what else comes up here..
-
Appeals at London Tribunals are available as telephone hearings.
I am astonished that you stayed with relations, yet no mention of the need for a visitor permit was mentioned. These permits allow visitors to residents to occupy permit-only bays. They are also in use in Manchester where there are also permit-only streets and zones.
Frankly, I cannot see you succeeding at LT on the signs issue, but I see nobody has contributed yet on enforcement process errors, so wait a but but if nobody comes on before the discount date arrives that may be your best option.
-
Thank you for your replies. I have double checked, and you are correct. There is one sign at the beginning, and one at the end, of the long bay. From the perspective of where I was parked, there was no visible sign looking forward or backward. There is a sign on entry to the road of the South Tottenham controlled parking. I had no idea that this was a controlled zone. I used to come here years ago, before it became a controlled zone. It seems it has been controlled for 3yrs. In Manchester we don't have these things. In Manchester it is also very common to have road markings showing restricted bays, without there being any restrictions. I suppose it was dark and late, and after a long drive. Suppose it goes to court, would I have to come down to London, or could I ask for it to be in Manchester, and would the council send someone?
It is family, but they forgot to tell us.
Thanks for all your help.
-
From GSV of June 2022, the latest, the bay is quite long with more than one sign because of its length. The restriction is clearly there to prevent commuters parking there all day, as it only applies for a short time from 10.00 until 12.00. There are three railway stations within about 5 minutes walk.
I'm afraid your points about signs being missing appear weak, because there is one outside No 60 only 2 doors away.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DrmjRMLTrtug8YdH9
assuming this sign is still there.
There is another sign by No 77, and the bay ends outside No 80
Across the road is a pole with no sign.
This is irrelevant, because parking restrictions are separate on each side of a street so even if there were a sign on the pole it would not apply to where you parked.
To be frank, the bay is quite well signed, (assuming GSV of 2022 shows the current signs situation) and the onus is on you as a motorist parking there in what is a marked bay, to see to find the applicable sign, one of which is 2 doors away from your parked car.
Reading your narrative, can it be that you knew the restriction started at 10.00am, but overslept ?
The final thing to ask is, was this an Airbnb accommodation ? You were a visitor to the property on the street so I am surprised there are no arrangements for visitors to obtain a visitor permit.
Sorry if the above is not what you wanted to hear, but I cannot see an appeal to London Tribunals succeeding on the contravention and signage. Of course there may be a 'technical' argument relating to PCN content, or the council website for submitting representations. So wait a bit for the "technicians" to respond, don't cough-up straight away.
-
My apologies. I have added the PCN.
-
Post the PCN.
The only thing that matters is a sign in the bay you were in.
The road is in the South Tottenham controlled parking zone so every part of all kerbs are covered by restrictions of some sort (mainly yellow lines and parking bays).
-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/behXzyqnfSvJWgCq5
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WJNym4p97823TYUi8
Arrived 10pm at night for stop over for weekend. We were travelling from Holiday in France and had been travelling since 9.30am. I have not been at that address for at least a year. I live in Manchester.
I parked outside no 64. There is a 2ft yellow single line a few house back, then white dashed lines marking the restricted parking area. There are loads of signs before the house I parked at. Possibly at every parking space, as one is residents, next is disabled, next is residents. I parked after the signs, but there is a very bushy unkempt tree obscuring the signs behind. Across the road is a pole with no sign. In front of where I parked there are about 7 car spaces, with lots of trees, and only one post, which does not have any sign on it about parking, but does have a blue arrow on it.
My claim is that the sign is very small, it was dark when I parked, and was obscured by the tree which the council have not pruned. The tree branches blocked my tree from closing, and got caught in my boot as they are so bushy. We had come from France, and most of the family slept right in. Passed the 11:26am. The signs are tiny, fitting just two words on each line. There should have been a sign in front of the car and on the other side of the road. Both are missing.
(The car is registered as silver, not grey. There tear off line is not in the right place, therefore missing text from back of notice.) There are pictures at night which is when I parked, and photos from later after the PCN issued.
Thanking you in advance.