Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: tkake on August 03, 2023, 03:00:45 pm
-
Thank you to @Pastmybest for putting forward a representation even though it didn't get that far.
The decision: https://flic.kr/p/2p9Q9Se
I also think along the same line as @DancingDad as i feel they have done it to not highlght other issues.
-
Just as i thought the council will not contest given the CC
don't know how to attach message from tribunal but have emailed it to you
I have thought on more then one occasion that issuing a CC is a deliberate ploy to avoid anything else being decided on.
Ah well, a win is a win
-
Just as i thought the council will not contest given the CC
don't know how to attach message from tribunal but have emailed it to you
-
Oh dear, they seem to have shot themselves in the foot ! Service of a CC when you are in the process of preparing to go to an adjudication which has already been given a hearing date, is a procedural impropriety of the first order and must be included in your appeal.
-
......... Only because i've now recieved a charge certificate.........
There's an oopsie
More properly known as a Procedural Impropriety
Which can hardly be blamed or excused on postal crossover.
Nor IMO be unwound by an apology or withdrawal.
Errors have consequences.
For a motorist a simple error can result in a penalty that can be enforced with the full force of the law. no matter how innocent the error or sincere the apology.
The same applies to enforcement authorities, there is no penalty for them but the law does require cancelation of a PCN should they take a step not sanctioned by the regulations.
-
email me an unredacted copy That is the first and winning point they cannot issue a CC whilst the matter is with the adjudicator. Case is set for the 20th
-
Council have uploaded evidence, nothing new other than TRO's I will go through these over then next couple of days with a view to upload our submission by Friday Time given by the tribunal is Tuesday although they cannot enforce this as the law stipulates that anything presented before the hearing must be considered. No point in getting their backs up though
Good Evening all. @Pastmybest can i enquiry if there has been any update from the tribunal? Only because i've now recieved a charge certificate.
https://flic.kr/p/2p7nZNy
https://flic.kr/p/2p7nDzM
-
Thank you again for your time.
-
Council have uploaded evidence, nothing new other than TRO's I will go through these over then next couple of days with a view to upload our submission by Friday Time given by the tribunal is Tuesday although they cannot enforce this as the law stipulates that anything presented before the hearing must be considered. No point in getting their backs up though
-
I am today registering the appeal on two grounds the contravention did not occur and also procedural impropriety i will not make a detailed submission just yet whilst we see if the council contest or not
Your appeal has been submitted
and allocated reference number FA00059-2309
-
I am today registering the appeal on two grounds the contravention did not occur and also procedural impropriety i will not make a detailed submission just yet whilst we see if the council contest or not
-
Whoever considered has obviously not understood that Signs in LATOR means any traffic signs and includes lines.... which as HCA explains, makes Failure to Consider a solid point to include.
To repeat myself but as they go on about the duty of motorists to check pole signs, there is no duty if the motorist is unaware that they are in a parking bay due to the authority not bothering to maintain lines...which have faded to the point of invisibility
-
As the authority were foolish enough to put their ignorance of LATOR in the NOR, IMO they haven't a hope in hell at adjudication.
LATOR were made by the Secretary of State pursuant to powers in the RTRA, they therefore import the definitions and meanings of 'traffic signs' in the Act:
64General provisions as to traffic signs.
(1)In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—
(a)specified by regulations made by the [F1relevant authority] , or
(b)authorised by the [F1relevant authority] ,
and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions. (a point made by others in this thread).
(my emphasis)
IMO, the debate has moved on from whether the road markings were adequate, although this could still be put forward, it's their failure to give proper consideration to your reps because of their use of the wrong legal context - see paras 2 and 3 on p2 of the NOR from to 'I have noted.to...guidance'.
Quite right although i will still lead with the condition of the road marking and position of the sign the lack of understanding of the law leaves them in a no hope position along with 2 procedural proprieties within the NOR re date of service and requirement to inform of reasons costs may be awarded
-
As the authority were foolish enough to put their ignorance of LATOR in the NOR, IMO they haven't a hope in hell at adjudication.
LATOR were made by the Secretary of State pursuant to powers in the RTRA, they therefore import the definitions and meanings of 'traffic signs' in the Act:
64General provisions as to traffic signs.
(1)In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—
(a)specified by regulations made by the [F1relevant authority] , or
(b)authorised by the [F1relevant authority] ,
and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions. (a point made by others in this thread).
(my emphasis)
IMO, the debate has moved on from whether the road markings were adequate, although this could still be put forward, it's their failure to give proper consideration to your reps because of their use of the wrong legal context - see paras 2 and 3 on p2 of the NOR from to 'I have noted.to...guidance'.
-
Yes i will deal with this if you wish Please send me a full unredacted copy of all paperwork and a letter of authority. I will PM you my email
-
Well the discount is not on offer so there's absolutely no point in paying now, as you can't end up any worse off by appealing.
It might be that @Pastmybest is available to represent you, if not I'll pick this one up.
-
Good evening,
i recieved a Notice of Rejection of Representations today.
https://flic.kr/p/2oYUda8
https://flic.kr/p/2oYX7PB
https://flic.kr/p/2oYYaSX
https://flic.kr/p/2oYX7Ed
https://flic.kr/p/2oYYaND
https://flic.kr/p/2oYZjcr
Any advice going forward would be appreciated. I really thought that the evidence that was put forward would of had this ended by now. The council have definately got a certain Mindset!
-
Convert this to PDF after completing the bits you need to fill in then send to the council
Representation against the imposition and continued enforcement of
PCN number xxxxxxxx
VRM AA23 BCD
(your details )
I make formal representation against the above numbered PCN under the statutory ground that
The contravention did not occur.
This comes about due to the failure to comply with the requirements of s18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force;
The council have failed to maintain signage in compliance with s18 and thus cannot enforce the order and demand a penalty
I approached the,what can only be described as a lay-by from the direction of South St the lay-by/bay being on my right. There were no road markings and the road surface of the lay-by was,allowing for wear and tear identical to the main carriageway. This being the case I crossed over the carriageway and parked outside number 23 Trinity St. Exiting my van I looked along the length of the lay-by, no signage was visible. The lay-by has all the appearance of an unrestricted section of carriageway set aside for parking.
Upon return to my vehicle I was somewhat confused to find a PCN so undertook some research originally at the site. I discovered a disabled parking sign at the other end of the bay outside number 11 this sign was set back against the wall of the building and blended in to such a degree as to make it invisible unless looking from directly in front.
That this was the only sign and absent any road markings there was no need to investigate the whole of the lay-by,for as said from all appearance the was not a regulated lay-by.
Further research lead me to TSRGD 2016 and it is allowable that only signs or road markings can be used to indicate a restriction, that TSRGD 2016 is complied with is not the end of the story however. The requirements of LATOR 1996 s18 must be met. In this case they were not.
Only one sign in at one end of a bay of approx 25 meters without any road markings cannot comply.
Further research with the highways department of the authority indicates that they are aware that the signs and markings are not to standard and that the markings require rectification (copy of email enclosed)
For this reason the PCN should be cancelled
-
just before i draft a representation please confirm you are the grey van
Correct, the grey van. I appreciate your time on this.
-
just before i draft a representation please confirm you are the grey van
-
I will draft you a representation tomorrow
-
I'm never one to guarantee a win but this looks like a slam dunk with that email
-
do you have that in writing?
Yep, got the email. https://flic.kr/p/2oTY2Df
-
do you have that in writing?
-
@DancingDad, LATOR only refers to signs which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially compliant.
Signs in the terms of LATOR also relates to lines.
The lack of clear lines falls full square into your comments on compliance, there were lines, they have faded to the point of not being readily visible, council have failed in their duty to maintain.
@PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing wrong with guiding their thinking.
I agree, end of the day the council can explain, ignore or whatever.
But sets up potential appeal should it get that far.
I also raised this issue with Cornwall Highways, who have accepted and verified that work is required on the road markings!
-
@DancingDad, LATOR only refers to signs which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially compliant.
Signs in the terms of LATOR also relates to lines.
The lack of clear lines falls full square into your comments on compliance, there were lines, they have faded to the point of not being readily visible, council have failed in their duty to maintain.
@PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing wrong with guiding their thinking.
I feel that what you do in that respect is give them a reason to reject telling them you know the surface is different and that there is a sign is also likely to sway an adjudicator. For me you need to tell them why you parked as you did and point out the lack of clear unambiguous signage for if the signage fails that test then LATOR is not complied with and the PCN falls That cannot happen if you tell them you know what the signage means
I agree, end of the day the council can explain, ignore or whatever.
But sets up potential appeal should it get that far.
-
@DancingDad, LATOR only refers to signs which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially compliant.
Signs in the terms of LATOR also relates to lines.
The lack of clear lines falls full square into your comments on compliance, there were lines, they have faded to the point of not being readily visible, council have failed in their duty to maintain.
@PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing wrong with guiding their thinking.
I agree, end of the day the council can explain, ignore or whatever.
But sets up potential appeal should it get that far.
-
@DancingDad, LATOR only refers to signs which the council think are necessary and there is one, albeit at the far end, and I don't see how an adjudicator could find that this was not compliant. It might not be what they would do or prefer, but I can't see that it is not substantially compliant.
I wondered whether perhaps the space at the end was a disabled bay with the others, including the OP's, having a different, unsigned, restriction. But GSV and the amendments to the orders show this not to be the case.
@PMB, my concern with not setting out the legal argument which underpins my draft is that this is almost inviting the numbskulls to reject because they don't know. I see nothing wrong with guiding their thinking.
-
I would not make mention of all the reasons why it could be compliant that's the councils job you just state why it is not No markings and only sign that you found aftr the issue of the PCN at the far end of the bay and not obvious being against the wall
-
I would add a comment....
Without obvious let alone compliant markings, the council have failed in their duty under Local Authority Traffic Order Regulations 1996 S18 to place and maintain traffic signs as needed to clearly show any restriction.
Without clear indication that this place is a restricted area, the motorist is under no obligation to check further for signage.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
-
Obviously make reps.
I refer to the above PCN and your rejection letter dated 27 June.
My representations against the NTO dated 28 July are under the grounds that the contravention did not occur for the following reasons.
Before setting these out I would like to establish the important contextual facts as regards the location:
1. The parking bay extends for 25m and is not marked with perimeter or intra-bay white lines;
2. There is a single traffic sign situated at one extreme of the bay;
3. My car was parked at the other end of the bay, 25m away;
4. There appears to be a slight difference in the surface treatment of the bay compared to the main carriageway which is uniform throughout the bay.
The above mean that:
If the bay's markings are substantially compliant with legal requirements then the whole bay is reserved for disabled BB holders and is subject to the restrictions in the sign.
I dispute that the markings are compliant and therefore the bay was not lawfully marked, its restrictions have no legal effect and, contrary to the point belaboured in your rejection, a motorist is not obliged to look for a traffic sign after parking.
Consequently, the contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.
If the authority dispute the above, then in any rejection they must establish their grounds for substantial compliance which, given the absence of compliant white lines, could only be based upon the bay being 'varied to contrast, in pattern or colour, from the surrounding parts of the road and any adjoining bays' (para. 2(3) of Part 5 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. regs refers). In this respect, I would refer the authority to the attached photos which are snapshots of the location taken from GSV over the period ** to 2023 which show that the once pristine white lines have been allowed to deteriorate and that the differential surface treatment, such as it is, has remained the same throughout.
For comment.
-
Yep, photo evidence https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
I think that is known as creative photography :)
Without a sign of the bay markings or lack of them.
-
Yep, photo evidence https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
-
we need to see the council photos to see just what the evidence is go online and get them or phone and ask
-
I'll copy this over from what I put in PPP
The way TSRGD is worded now, there is no call for disabled legend nor for a marked bay, differing paving, tarmac is often regarded as enough to show it is a parking bay.
However, lack of white lines can see an adjudicator find that markings were inadequate and allow an appeal.
Especially as google seems to show very faded white lines.
Your photos seem to confirm this.
What the council says is correct, if you park in a bay it is up to you to check for restrictions...ie pole signs.
But they don't seem to appreciate that if you don't realise that you are in a bay due to poor markings, the duty to check for restriction signs is academic
-
Apologies i did originally post this in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=150930
Can i please have your guidance on the following?
I recieved the following https://flic.kr/p/2oTrqHH due to unknowingly parking in a designated bay.
I initially challenged this by trying to show the council that the road markings are in a poor state and have degraded since April 2017.
https://flic.kr/p/2oTrsTp
https://flic.kr/p/2oTtxRL
https://flic.kr/p/2oToyrv
https://flic.kr/p/2oTtYXL
https://flic.kr/p/2oToyye
https://flic.kr/p/2oTtZ2y
I also put in some references of the TRAFFIC SIGNS Manual - Chapter 3 regulatory signs paras 13.6.2 and 13.11.4 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)
However, the appeal was refused:
https://flic.kr/p/2oTp5L8
https://flic.kr/p/2oTuvbM
Can the council decide to opt in or out as they please when it comes to providing adequate signage?
https://goo.gl/maps/mxHBBEFfMpuNama89
I have now recieved a NTO
https://flic.kr/p/2oTovHp
https://flic.kr/p/2oTtvug
https://flic.kr/p/2oTsn5B
https://flic.kr/p/2oTrqC7