Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: smart_fortwo on June 18, 2023, 12:53:12 am
-
Hearings are a fail-safe. Most of the time hearings only last between 30 seconds and 5 minutes, because the adjudicator has been persuaded up-front by what I've written. It's the remaining hearings, where the adjudicator starts by saying that it looks like a clear-cut case and why shouldn't he refuse it, that the benefit of oral submissions comes in.
I've had a couple of cases over the past few weeks where the adjudicator basically told me that it looked like a clear-cut contravention and there didn't seem to be much to appeal on. I won both cases, but in both cases it took me nearly 50 minutes to go through all the arguments and evidence and persuade the adjudicator. Even though on paper they were strong appeals, without a hearing I suspect both would have been lost.
Hopefully this thread will serve as a warning to others.
-
Apologies cp8759 for my slow response. Against your advice, I went for decision on papers. With hindsight, I should perhaps have taken your advice:
I guess when presented with 19 uploaded pieces of evidence, accompanied by my comments on some of them, it would have been easy for the adjudicator to overlook a relevant legal argument, as appears happened in the case of the Council's misquote of the Traffic Signs Regulations relating to arrows on upright signs. A hearing would also have enabled me to ascertain why she felt evidence to support insufficient width of bay was lacking, when to me it was patently obvious from the photograph that the bay was too narrow.
Whether a hearing would have changed the outcome, I don't know, but through the process I have learned a lot about parking regulations and the enforcement process - thanks in part to advice on here. As far as I can recall, it's only my 3rd parking ticket in 40 years of driving, and I hope the last.
-
Did you actually ask for a hearing, or did you go for a decision on the papers?
-
Well cp_8759, I didn't take your advice, submitted what I though was a compelling case online, and my appeal has been dismissed. "Told you so" I can almost hear you say.
In summary my grounds for appeal, and the grounds for rejection were:
(1) The bay markings should encompass the entire length of road designated as a parking place. The adjudicator disagreed and stated that the parking restrictions were consistent with the TRO - the council was entitled to regulate parking in the areas defined as parking places.
(2) The bay didn't provide the minimum depth of 1.8 metres as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations. The adjudicator stated that the Council had investigated the width and there was insufficient evidence before her for a successful challenge. I don't know whether this was because I didn't provide a measurement of the bay at the point I had parked (relying instead on the photo), or whether she considered it was acceptable for the bay to taper to zero width.
(3) The only upright sign was approximately 2 metres outside the bay, adjacent to double yellow lines, and furthermore didn't have an arrow to indicate in which direction the restriction applied as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations, giving the impression that the bay itself was an uncontrolled parking bay. The adjudicator concluded that the placement of the sign was adequate and also sided with the Council who had stated that as there was no change in the restriction, no arrow was required.
In relation to the arrow, I felt the adjudicator was in error, as she appeared to overlook a piece of evidence I had uploaded, which pointed out that the Council had quoted inaccurately from the Traffic Signs Regulations, which state that an arrow is required when the sign indicates "the beginning of, or change in, a restriction or prohibition". As there are no further residents bays beyond this sign, I had pointed out that the sign was clearly intended to mark the beginning of the restriction.
For this reason, I requested a review of the decision, but this has also been rejected, on the grounds that the second adjudicator was of the opinion that all the grounds for appeal had been considered by the 1st. Regardless of the merits of my appeal, this is disappointing as it lets the Council off the hook in relation to its incorrect signage.
-
I'll tell you how I approach every appeal: I put in a one-line appeal stating "The appellant relies on his formal representations" and I wait and see what comes back. In 35% of cases the council doesn't contest, so I don't need to do anything else. If they contest, more often than not the council's evidence pack provides additional grounds of appeal.
You can submit additional evidence & grounds of appeal at any time prior to the case being decided, as long as you don't try and ambush the authority by submitting some key piece of evidence the day before the hearing.
Obviously you should appeal online using the foam portal, as this avoids any issues with the post (and at the hearing the adjudicator will have foam in front of them, so it's handy to be looking at the same screen).
When the time comes, make sure to request a video hearing, do not go for a decision on the papers.
-
Thank you cp8759. I have cheekily adapted that short statement to include in my draft appeal. My draft is below. If anyone thinks I should add, take away or modify anything before I submit, your input would be most welcome.
With holiday, and late despatch/delivery of NoR, the 28+2 days has come round a bit quicker than I expected - Fri 21st, so I'll be looking to submit this tomorrow.
Is my reading of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal FAQ's correct, that the additional evidence - photos, maps, etc - is not subject to the 28+2 deadline, so that can follow a day or two later?
"The length of road on which the car was parked is identified as a parking place on the relevant plan attached to the TRO. The diagram shows clearly that the parking place is not confined to the two sections of road having increased width, but also extends along the length of road between them. This is consistent with the absence of yellow lines along the edge of the carriageway. The road markings at this point do not provide a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the edge of the carriageway as required by the Traffic Sign Regulations and are therefore invalid (Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 of the Regulations, in particular Item 6 (a) of the sign table of Schedule 7, Part 4). The car was parked very close to the kerb, encroaching less than 1.6 metres into the carriageway.
The Notice of Rejection of Representation from Warwickshire County Council states that parking bays are laid out in order to optimise traffic flow and for ease of manoeuvrability for vehicles using the parking area. While the TRO provides discretion for the Council to subdivide the parking place into individual parking spaces, which it has not done, I don’t believe the Council has power to override the plan attached to the TRO by omitting sections of the parking place from the scope of bay markings. The TRO defines the extent of the bay and the road markings should reflect what the TRO provides.
Any implication in the Council’s Notice of Rejection that the position the car was parked in in some way may have interfered with traffic flow or ease of manoeuvrability is flawed. As regards traffic flow, the width of the carriageway at the narrowest point of the parking place is equal to the width of the carriageway incorporating the disabled bay to the south and the lengthy parking place beyond. Furthermore, much of the road to the north of the parking place of the same width with waiting restrictions is frequently occupied by a row of cars used by disabled badge holders visiting the nearby Warwick Hospital. As regards manoeuvrability for vehicles using the parking area, this is determined mainly by the consideration of vehicle drivers in leaving sufficient space between parked cars rather than any action of the Council. It is in any case not relevant to the length of road on which the car was parked, which comprises a straight section of kerb between private accesses.
The upright sign to the north of the parking place does not comply with Paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations which states that where the sign indicates the beginning of, or change in, a restriction or prohibition, it must incorporate an arrow pointing to the left or right. This omission is compounded by the fact that the sign does not comply with Paragraph 13.21.3 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, which states that the sign should be within the extent of the bay, whereas this sign is approximately 2 metres outside the extent of the bay. These two defects together give the strong impression that the bay as marked is an uncontrolled parking place, not subject to a Traffic Regulation Order.
For these reasons, I appeal on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur."
-
I still think the diagram attached to the TRO, which shows that the parking place extends along the whole length of road incorporating the two marked bays, overrides this, meaning there is a valid case to be made.
I agree with that, it's the TRO that creates the bay. The road markings are just there to inform you about what the TRO provides.
-
There is a minimum width of 1.8m for a parking place situated at the edge of the carriageway therefore the parking place was incorrectly marked and is unenforceable.
Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 to the regs:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
In particular:
1. A restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in—
(a)the diagram in column 3; or
(b)that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.
As part of my appeal, this is very useful. However, I am a little unsure about the last part, ie the permitted variants, in particular Part 5 Paragraph 7:
The transverse line may be omitted (a) from that part of the marking that is placed in a lay-by
Could the council argue that the marked bay is in a lay-by, and therefore a defined end marking for the bay is not required, allowing it to taper down to zero?
I still think the diagram attached to the TRO, which shows that the parking place extends along the whole length of road incorporating the two marked bays, overrides this, meaning there is a valid case to be made.
-
Thank you cp8759, I appreciate your offer, and for your insight and those of others on this forum. However, I'm happy to proceed without representation. If I'm unsure about anything, I'll ask here, otherwise I'll update the forum with the outcome.
Ok, best of luck!
-
Thank you cp8759, I appreciate your offer, and for your insight and those of others on this forum. However, I'm happy to proceed without representation. If I'm unsure about anything, I'll ask here, otherwise I'll update the forum with the outcome.
-
You definitely want to quote chapter and verse, I repeat that I'd be happy to represent you at the tribunal. If you go it alone and lose, it'll be too late.
These are my last 52 appeal outcomes from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal:
(https://i.imgur.com/CELEVhQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4PA8uUY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HJqpBPu.png)
-
Thank you Ugly duckling, that's helpful. Taking account of your observations and those from cp8759, I have decided to appeal, and am thinking along the following lines:
The length of road on which the car was parked is defined as a parking place in the TRO. This is consistent with the absence of yellow lines along the edge of the carriageway at this point. There is nothing in the TRO that would suggest the Council has discretion to further restrict parking within the defined parking place, other than to subdivide it into individual parking spaces, which it has not done. The bay as marked does not provide a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the edge of the carriageway as required by the Traffic Sign Regulations and is therefore invalid. The car was parked very close to the kerb and encroached less than 1.6 metres into the carriageway. I therefore appeal on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Is this valid and strong enough? In particular, is there benefit in quoting chapter and verse from the regulations given that the adjudicator should be familiar with them?
-
Does this mean that the council might h carte blanche to further restrict parking with the area shown as a parking place?
No.
Councils make orders, signs are prescribed by the govt. There is a minimum width of 1.8m for a parking place situated at the edge of the carriageway therefore the parking place was incorrectly marked and is unenforceable.
Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 7 to the regs:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
In particular:
1. A restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the Part 4 sign table must be conveyed by road markings of the size, colour and type shown in—
(a)the diagram in column 3; or
(b)that diagram as varied in accordance with the paragraph in Part 5 whose number appears in column 4 of the item.
That disposes of the issue of the faulty depth of the bay, sadly the faulty depth of the enforcement authority's officers knowledge is a different matter.
Having said this your parking was potentially dangerous because it left part of your car stationary in the traffic lane of the carriageway.
-
I'm sensing that the Council may be overstepping their powers in using their discretion to in effect cancel out a section of the parking space defined by the TRO.
In any case, I think their arguments are weak. Regarding optimising traffic management, there is little justification to restrict, as adjacent sections of this road of equal width to the south have marked parking bays, and the section of road to the north of equal width is typically lined with a row of cars displaying disabled parking permits. Regarding ease of manoeuvrability, again there is little justification, as the angles are very slight. There are examples in Warwickshire of parking bays incorporating very sharp curves.
Am I thinking along the right lines? In regard to your offer cp8759, that is very generous. However, if it did come to tribunal, I'd probably feel more comfortable representing myself. Am I right in thinking not all appeals result in tribunal, eg the Council might decide to concede the case?
-
I'm happy to represent you at the tribunal if you'd like to pursue this. I can't give any absolute guarantees, but I'd expect to win a case like this without too much difficulty. I'll drop you a PM with instructions on the next steps should you wish to proceed.
-
(https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=26d64a403b150030%21193748&authkey=%21AJWdXJDWMUL0ZkA&width=509&height=720)
(https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=26d64a403b150030%21193749&authkey=%21AKnXVfr_-u-7wPo&width=509&height=720)
(https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=26d64a403b150030%21193750&authkey=%21ADi_0VgLC1zOiBU&width=509&height=720)
(https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=26d64a403b150030%21193747&authkey=%21AJ0TH-YrVoU0HBs&width=509&height=720)
-
Link to rejection notice:
-
I'm getting a "folder full" error if I try to upload the scanned document - 4 jpeg files totalling 417 kB - is there an easy way round this?
-
As predicted, a notice of rejection of representation has come through from the council.
Is their rejection valid? Does the council have power to limit the length of road defined by the TRO as a parking place to any specific marked spaces which they deem appropriate?
By offering a further discount period of 14 days from the date of the letter (which I assume expires of 5 July), I guess they are attempting to discourage appeal. Should I take up their offer of discount or appeal to the tribunal?
-
I assume there is no need to attach supporting documentation as they have ready access to everything already.
Yes that's correct.
-
Thank you cp8759, I've submitted my representation and will update the forum when I hear back:
[attach=1]
I assume there is no need to attach supporting documentation as they have ready access to everything already.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That's actually a very good representation! Get it sent off and don't forget to get a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation screen.
Of course I doubt the council will accept it, but I'll be happy to represent you at the traffic penalty tribunal if need be.
-
Thank you very much for your prompt response cp8759 (and apologies for the mistakes and revisions to my last post while I got to grips with the new forum software!)
Would the following representation be sufficient?:
"Please cancel the Penalty Charge Notice as I believe the alleged contravention did not occur. The plans attached to the Traffic Regulation Order identify the length of road on which my vehicle was parked as a parking place. The road markings do not incorporate the full extent of the parking place as defined in the Order and are therefore invalid."
-
The distinction between parking places and parking spaces is used for bays that are separated out into individual bays.
The GSV image here https://goo.gl/maps/kHnLtLvb6HP2GSeY6 quite clearly shows that the bay is not divided into individual spaces, so the definition of spaces is largely irrelevant.
If the bay were divided into individual spaces and you were to straddle two spaces, a PCN could be issued for that, but that is not the allegation here. The allegation here is clearly that the council says you were not properly parked within the confines of the designated parking place.
The problem is, there is nothing in the traffic order that the council can point at to demonstrate that the width of the bay is correct, and there's an argument that it's entirely wrong.
Does that make sense?
-
To summarise a thread I started on PePiPoo:
I had parked on Lakin Road in Warwick within the marked length of a time-limited bay, but with the outer two wheels of my car outside the markings due to the tapering width of the bay:
[attach=1]
The location of the bay is here:
Google Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2889583,-1.581463,3a,75y,242.24h,71.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smCuM2Pm5HY6vQ7aixrqs9Q!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
I received the following PCN:
[attach=2][attach=3]
I submitted an informal challenge which the council declined. This is the point I asked for help on PePiPoo
cp8759 helpfully pointed out that the marked bays do not correspond to the map accompanying the Traffic Regulation Order shown here:
Traffic Regulation Order map (https://store.traffweb.app/warwickshire/documents/parkmap/msched/FY54_rv2_1.pdf)
However, having obtained a copy of the TRO from the Council, I am confused as the TRO says the map shows parking places but states that within a parking place, every vehicles left within a parking place must park entirely with the boundary of a marked space. Does this mean that the council might h carte blanche to further restrict parking with the area shown as a parking place?
I have now received the Notice to Owner:
[attach=4]
Advice on my next step would be much appreciated. If it is clear that the PCN was invalid, I will submit a representation that the alleged contravention did not occur. Help in drafting a sentence which explains why no contravention took place, that would be very helpful.
[attachment deleted by admin]