Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: crxvtec on August 07, 2023, 11:10:07 pm
-
We ended up paying this, as it wasn't worth the time calling up TEC and sitting on hold week in week out for hours on end.
-
Shareholder is not relevant.
Being a Director doesn't necessarily convey executive authority to act on behalf of the company.
IMO, all correspondence should be on the lessee's headed paper and signed 'for' or similar.
-
Understood sir. I am a director/shareholder of the lessee company.
-
So within the scope of parking enforcement this matter has nothing to do with you!
But you posted last year: I've written to the lease company and they've confirmed that they've passed on my details to Harrow Council
OP, to be clear, if the lessee is a company then only the company may make reps and appeal, you as an individual may not. You may draft for them and even represent them subject to holding the necessary written authority by the penalty will never be yours.
-
Still not registered at TEC.
-
It's a company leased vehicle.
The CC is addressed to the company address.
-
The keeper's response to the OP..
The hire company said "I can confirm that we have provided your companies details to the fine issuer, they should reissue the fine to your companies address for you to be able to action this further."
Setting aside the poor grammar, OP what has 'your company' got to do with matters?
Some basic questions:
Have you personally hired this vehicle;
Is the CC addressed to you at your address?
-
Still not registered.
-
I called today and it is not yet registered with TEC.
-
@crxvtec No! Do not contact the council!
Contacting the council will simply delay things, you need to follow the instructions here: https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificate-cases-under-the-traffic-management-act-2004-no-original-pcn/
-
Hi John, I don't see any history on the Harrow Council website but I'm still able to send them a note.
I'm thinking to send the following:
I am in receipt of a charge notice dated 17/6/2024, wherein it states that a Notice to Owner (NTO) was issued on 9/11/2023. I have received no such document therefore I have not been able to make formal representations. I wish to make a formal representation as indicated by correspondence sent previously. Kindly confirm how I may do this. Thank you.
-
So nothing for ages, then this came through.
Are you able to access any sort of case history on Harrow's website?
For some reason you've redacted the reg.mark?
(https://i.ibb.co/xzWsxVq/parking-letter.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YfmWHvB)
-
So nothing for ages, then this came through.
https://ibb.co/YfmWHvB
I don't remember seeing the NTO.
-
Sorry, I am confused. What is the "hire ground"?
One of the statutory grounds that can be used to challenge an NTO
The hire company said "I can confirm that we have provided your companies details to the fine issuer, they should reissue the fine to your companies address for you to be able to action this further."
-
Sorry, I am confused. What is the "hire ground"?
A hire company can challenge a notice to owner on the basis that they're a hire company and the vehicle was on hire. The council will accept this, cancel the notice to owner, and then issue another one to the person who had hired the vehicle. Otherwise companies like Hertz or Europcar would go bust due to the millions of pounds in PCNs they'd have to pay.
-
Sorry, I am confused. What is the "hire ground"?
One of the statutory grounds that can be used to challenge an NTO
-
Sorry, I am confused. What is the "hire ground"?
-
I've written to the lease company and they've confirmed that they've passed on my details to Harrow Council so waiting for NTO.
Does that mean they have received an NTO and challenged on hire ground, giving your details
Or just that they've sent a random letter which will be ignored?
-
I've written to the lease company and they've confirmed that they've passed on my details to Harrow Council so waiting for NTO.
-
Notice to Owner will go to the hire/lease company assuming their name is on the V5c
You need to contact them, pre warn them and ask that they challenge using the Hire Company ground and give your name and address (ensure they have the correct one)
Do it in writing.
This should prevent them simply paying or doing something silly like just forwarding the NTO to you.
If they use that gound, it should see their NTO cancelled and a new one issued to you.
-
Obviously just wait for the notice to owner. The council is just hoping you'll give up and pay, they know that most people mostly give us as soon as they get the first rejection.
-
Let us know when you get a response from Harrow, if they reject one of us will represent you.
There's a response:
https://ibb.co/5RXwYx6
https://ibb.co/FgbzCP9
They don't seem to be having any of it.
-
Let us know when you get a response from Harrow, if they reject one of us will represent you.
-
you were parked on the Broadway not Uxbridge rd
The traffic order described it as "The service road on the south side of Uxbridge Road, fronted by Nos. 339 to 523 Uxbridge Road", to borrow a phrase from Mr Teper, is that not good enough?
The schedule then says that there is a maximum of 15 spaces, so if the council then goes and paints 15 parking spaces in that parking place, it's hard to say they've done anything wrong as far as creating the bays & the restrictions.
The problem for the council is that the PCN doesn't say "The service road on the south side of Uxbridge Road", it just says "Uxbridge Road", so the contravention alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur.
Aside from that, the strongest point is likely to be that the council won't put in adequate evidence that it has properly communicated the requirement to park within an individual space, this is very much dependant on this photo (https://ibb.co/KKHS0v8) not being included in any representations (I have seen cases before where the best photos of the signage are those submitted by the motorist, we really want to avoid that).
Have you already sent the representations? It's not the end of the world if you have, but if not we can refine them a little. There is no 1000 character limit as you can just put the representation in a PDF and upload it as an attachment.
Hi CP, yes representation has gone and I edited it to fit the character limit - that's the copy I pasted in a previous message on this thread and focuses on the primary defence so it's now over to Harrow to can it or reject - and if they reject presumably I can appeal and then put in the supplementary defences if Harrow's rejection is compelling? I can't see how this is going to be worth their while to pursue but stranger things have happened.
-
you were parked on the Broadway not Uxbridge rd
The traffic order described it as "The service road on the south side of Uxbridge Road, fronted by Nos. 339 to 523 Uxbridge Road", to borrow a phrase from Mr Teper, is that not good enough?
The schedule then says that there is a maximum of 15 spaces, so if the council then goes and paints 15 parking spaces in that parking place, it's hard to say they've done anything wrong as far as creating the bays & the restrictions.
The problem for the council is that the PCN doesn't say "The service road on the south side of Uxbridge Road", it just says "Uxbridge Road", so the contravention alleged on the face of the PCN did not occur.
Aside from that, the strongest point is likely to be that the council won't put in adequate evidence that it has properly communicated the requirement to park within an individual space, this is very much dependant on this photo (https://ibb.co/KKHS0v8) not being included in any representations (I have seen cases before where the best photos of the signage are those submitted by the motorist, we really want to avoid that).
Have you already sent the representations? It's not the end of the world if you have, but if not we can refine them a little. There is no 1000 character limit as you can just put the representation in a PDF and upload it as an attachment.
-
The 'conditions of use' sign has all the hallmarks of being in a car park, not on a road e.g. 'blue badge holders can park free of charge, motorcycles are not permitted to park in P&D bays etc.
-
Had to reduce to fit a 1000 character limit:
The CEO's photos show shops adjacent to the parked car, and parked cars on both sides of the roadway with only space for single file traffic down the middle. The photos are consistent with a car being parked on The Broadway, Hatch End. Uxbridge Road in Hatch End is a busy A road with traffic in both directions however the photos do not show the car being parked on Uxbridge Road, as the PCN alleges, therefore the alleged contravention didn't occur.
Further, the bay markings on The Broadway are extremely faded and aren’t recognisable. Bay markings are usually “T” or “L” shaped and placed to allow drivers to determine if they are parked in a bay or not. In this instance, with cars parked ahead and behind, the markings were concealed under cars, rendering it impossible to know that they were there. Neither are there overt signs saying “park in marked bays”, nor does the Traffic Order require in any meaningful sense as there are no machines present associated to specific parking bays.
-
Thanks DD.
I'll remove the hirer part and send this in. I'll post the response once I receive it.
-
Thanks for the sign.
While they may point to it, signs still can only reflect the traffic order conditions and assuming CP found the correct one (good assumption) the order doesn't say it in that way.
I'm happier with the tweak BTW... I would lose the "hirer" part...irrelevant and does infer that you may have issues at NTO stage not being the Owner.
Which we may need to discuss if (probably will) they reject this representation.
-
Tweaked response:
Dear Sirs,
We appeal as hirer. The PCN is issued incorrectly: the photos taken by the CEO clearly show shops adjacent to the parked car, and parked cars on both sides of the roadway with only space for single file traffic down the middle. The photos are consistent with a car being parked on The Broadway, Hatch End. Uxbridge Road in Hatch End is a busy A road with traffic flowing in both directions however the photos do not show the car being parked on Uxbridge Road, as the PCN alleges. We would therefore appreciate immediate cancellation of this PCN on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Further, the bay markings on The Broadway are extremely faded and aren’t recognisable. Bay markings are usually “T” or “L” shaped and placed to allow drivers to determine if they are parked in a bay or not. In this instance, with cars parked ahead and behind, the markings were completely concealed underneath vehicles and therefore rendering it impossible to know that they were there. Neither are there overt signs saying “park in marked bays”, nor does the Traffic Order require in any meaningful sense as there are no machines present associated to specific parking bays.
Yours faithfully,
-
..
There is small print on the sign, conditions of use 2c says you get a PCN if you park outside the bay markings, but makes no provision for when the markings aren't visible.
So will the appeal be based on the offence not occurring because the bay markings were not visible, or should I word it differently?
Sorry, I missed your earlier comment.....What conditions on what sign and where is this sign?
Do not ignore that markings are extremely faded and there are no overt signs saying park in marked bays nor does the traffic order require in any meaningful sense.
Please see image here: https://ibb.co/KKHS0v8 section 2c.
-
..
There is small print on the sign, conditions of use 2c says you get a PCN if you park outside the bay markings, but makes no provision for when the markings aren't visible.
So will the appeal be based on the offence not occurring because the bay markings were not visible, or should I word it differently?
Sorry, I missed your earlier comment.....What conditions on what sign and where is this sign?
Do not ignore that markings are extremely faded and there are no overt signs saying park in marked bays nor does the traffic order require in any meaningful sense.
-
Gonna go with this:
Dear Sirs,
We appeal as hirer. The PCN is issued incorrectly: the photos taken by the CEO clearly show shops adjacent to the parked car, and parked cars on both sides of the roadway with only space for single file traffic down the middle. The photos are consistent with a car being parked on The Broadway, Hatch End. Uxbridge Road in Hatch End is a busy A road with traffic flowing in both directions however the photos do not show the car being parked on Uxbridge Road, as the PCN alleges. We would therefore appreciate immediate cancellation of this PCN on the basis that the offence alleged did not occur.
Yours faithfully,
Is that OK?
-
There aren't any ticket machines to photograph. They've all been taken out and now it's PayByPhone only.
In that case I stick with my thoughts
There are no signs advising the motorist to park within marked bays
The requirement within the traffic order cannot be complied with without appropriate ticket machines, ie parking meters, you cannot park in a bay relative to a payment machine if payment machines do not exist.
There is small print on the sign, conditions of use 2c says you get a PCN if you park outside the bay markings, but makes no provision for when the markings aren't visible.
So will the appeal be based on the offence not occurring because the bay markings were not visible, or should I word it differently?
-
There aren't any ticket machines to photograph. They've all been taken out and now it's PayByPhone only.
Then it's hard to see how the council could possibly discharge its duty to communicate the requirement to park within a marked bay. Throw in the other arguments discussed above, and it's definitely a case worth pursuing.
-
Yep wrong location, not a sure fired winner with all adjudicators as location is not a statutory requirement but most adjudicators agree that as the PCN states the CEO has reason to believe you commit a contravention at a location you must at least be at that place
you were parked on the Broadway not Uxbridge rd
I hadn't picked up on that despite you saying it before...apologies.
Tis a good point, though it seems to be a service road and is noted as such in the TMO schedule CP pointed to earlier, it is called the Broadway on Google.
Certainly worth throwing in, if only to see how the council respond.
-
Yep wrong location, not a sure fired winner with all adjudicators as location is not a statutory requirement but most adjudicators agree that as the PCN states the CEO has reason to believe you commit a contravention at a location you must at least be at that place
you were parked on the Broadway not Uxbridge rd
-
There aren't any ticket machines to photograph. They've all been taken out and now it's PayByPhone only.
In that case I stick with my thoughts
There are no signs advising the motorist to park within marked bays
The requirement within the traffic order cannot be complied with without appropriate ticket machines, ie parking meters, you cannot park in a bay relative to a payment machine if payment machines do not exist.
-
There aren't any ticket machines to photograph. They've all been taken out and now it's PayByPhone only.
-
Best to pop back there if you can and get a couple of photos of the nearest ticket machine, even if it's all the way up the road, and it's wordings on/around it.
-
The relevant bit in Article 8 says
"(c) that every part of the vehicle is within the limits of a parking bay, which is the
appropriate bay in relation to the ticket parking machine, in which has been
or should have been inserted any coin or coins for the purpose of payment of
the parking charge"
This is same wording as we've recently seen in another similar case from another authority.
To me it fails simply because there is no payment machine that the bay relates to. It is wording that harks back to parking meters for each bay, without parking meters, the clause makes little sense.
We also have the arguments on clarity of markings and that the requirement to park in marked bays is not conveyed on appropriate signage (though may be on any payment machine?)
-
https://ibb.co/Q6ZkY3K
This is the sign wording. The machine wording isn't available but would expect it to parrot this sign.
-
CP, did you receive the TRO? 14 day discount period lapsing soon so want to get something in ASAP ideally.
The TMO is The Harrow (Parking Places) Traffic Order 2020 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1JA7T805jfccPCmSK4dp53N7vSvcnk-LP) and the relevant schedule is Schedule 68 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1H3AqGocmH9b7rtbF9c16BTb4KbRitmhv).
The relevant entry to the schedule seems to be item 1(b)(ii) on page 2, although I think the words "a point opposite" should not be there.
The schedule does define the number of parking spaces in each parking place (i.e. bay), and Article 8 says you must be parked within a space.
The one issue that remains is how these requirements are brought to the attention of motorists. The CEO didn't take any photos of the P&D machine, and GSV doesn't have the resolution to read anything on it, see https://goo.gl/maps/uaJTqxBhgeM3v3We7
Are you able to go back and get some photos?
-
You posted: There were no markings visible anywhere so we paid and left.
The photos clearly show the rear of your car straddling markings, they also show clear markings behind your car. Your statement is not credible IMO.
But whether the markings over which your car was parked are clearly distinguishable as intra-parking place markings to a diligent motorist is another matter as is whether the order requires parking wholly within bay markings.
I put it this way because IMO you have to be clear about a defence which is not undermined by your actions at the time and the objective evidence of the photos.
-
CP, did you receive the TRO? 14 day discount period lapsing soon so want to get something in ASAP ideally.
-
Yep wrong location, not a sure fired winner with all adjudicators as location is not a statutory requirement but most adjudicators agree that as the PCN states the CEO has reason to believe you commit a contravention at a location you must at least be at that place
Hi PMB, I don't follow your comment. Perhaps I've had a wine too many this evening! The signs are from the parade where the car was parked.
-
Yep wrong location, not a sure fired winner with all adjudicators as location is not a statutory requirement but most adjudicators agree that as the PCN states the CEO has reason to believe you commit a contravention at a location you must at least be at that place
-
I got some photos of the signage on the street:
https://ibb.co/g4Rj2rR
https://ibb.co/5h78Jgj
https://ibb.co/5j6hmCZ
https://ibb.co/9rqf6VJ
https://ibb.co/Q6ZkY3K
https://ibb.co/2dYWDBY
https://ibb.co/KKHS0v8
-
I've requested the traffic management order, looks like various avenues are worth exploring with this one.
-
Please post a google street view link to the exact spot, i would venture either wrong location or vague location could be in play
Looks like here?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6075811,-0.3743394,3a,75y,140.5h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR8g-ob8Rg-0X-nuwZDsZoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
And that Op parked across two marked bays.
Though markings are not exactly jumping out at you.
Sign just up the road doesn't specify marked bays.
Once again I have to wonder what the traffic order says?
Exactly right on the GSV location. The markings are vague and badly formed.
I don't know what the traffic order says but I did find this: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_meter_and_pay_by_phone_r
-
Please post a google street view link to the exact spot, i would venture either wrong location or vague location could be in play
Looks like here?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6075811,-0.3743394,3a,75y,140.5h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR8g-ob8Rg-0X-nuwZDsZoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
And that Op parked across two marked bays.
Though markings are not exactly jumping out at you.
Sign just up the road doesn't specify marked bays.
Once again I have to wonder what the traffic order says?
-
It's a company leased vehicle.
You need to discovere what your company's policy is re PCNs.
-
Please post a google street view link to the exact spot, i would venture either wrong location or vague location could be in play
-
https://ibb.co/MpXKPvF
https://ibb.co/HPn64VT
https://ibb.co/cCxYMF2
https://ibb.co/rZxvKHf
https://ibb.co/nrrqCY5
https://ibb.co/j8qncSC
https://ibb.co/FXYCMFV
https://ibb.co/8Kh08kK
https://ibb.co/87fg3rv
https://ibb.co/Dpbz3nS
https://ibb.co/x6yYLfB
Got this PCN for apparently not parking correctly within a bay or space. On arrival, there was a car parked directly in front so we parked directly behind. There were no markings visible anywhere so we paid and left, only to return to a PCN. The "bay" in front of our car isn't marked out as seen in the photos, ditto the "bay" behind our car. The markings in the photos were obscured by the car so it wasn't apparent that we were between two bays.
Your advice is appreciated. It's a company leased vehicle.