Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: makenote on November 12, 2024, 11:16:45 am
-
Where is your proof of posting and your reps?
If you don't want your evidence reviewed, so be it.
Here it all is...
Informal appeal:
https://imgur.com/a/2FyDKbe
Informal appeal proof of postage:
https://imgur.com/a/7xbTfGe
Formal appeal:
https://imgur.com/a/Mzt3eDn
Formal appeal proof of postage:
https://imgur.com/a/0vVA4Nd
Notes:
* They claim they responded to my informal appeal by post. I never received their response and have never had even one single other item of post go missing at the address where I live. I suspect they either didn't send a response, addressed it wrong or their own internal mail system lost it. I'm aware it's not technically a full on procedural impropriety to fail to respond.
* The certificate of posting doesn't appear to specify first class but the corresponding VAT receipt does.
-
Where is your proof of posting and your reps?
If you don't want your evidence reviewed, so be it.
-
According to their response they are IN TIME.
'We have considered your representations dated 14 March..'
Yes, thanks, I'm aware. But what they've said is simply not true and I can prove otherwise.
IMO, at this stage let's not get bogged down in email dates (and whether the authority have complied with the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance) until we've exhausted the issue of letters and posting.
Well, I feel like I need to cover all bases if I'm going to write an appeal to the tribunal. Which was why my question was if I send that proof of postage and a copy of the formal appeal to the tribunal then is that definitely "game, set and match" in my favour?
Also, something else I realised. They emailed me their response and attached the Notice of Rejection. So if they can do that and expect it to be deemed served but expect that in the case of me doing the same to them it isn't deemed served they are having a laugh surely. Although this is somewhat irrespective of course seeing as proof of postage should prove it in my favour anyway.
-
According to their response they are IN TIME.
'We have considered your representations dated 14 March..'
The NOR is dated 12 May.
Reps dated Friday 14 March deemed served Tues. 18th which is day 1.
NOR dated Mon. 12 May deemed served Wed. 14th.
Elapsed period: 56 days.
Over to you for the Proof of Posting and copy of your posted NOR.
IMO, at this stage let's not get bogged down in email dates (and whether the authority have complied with the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance) until we've exhausted the issue of letters and posting.
-
Let's see the rejection letter.
To appeal to the tribunal you need to follow the instructions in this letter.
It does seem they've busted the 56 day limit.
Here is the rejection letter:
https://imgur.com/a/xAN9qrx (https://imgur.com/a/xAN9qrx)
-
But also note that the time period starts with the date the council receive the reps, not when they are sent out.
My understanding is that it is considered "received" on the 2nd working day after posting it 1st class, unless the recipient can prove otherwise. Which apparently they almost never can. Right?
If so then the council was 3 days late in sending their Notice of Rejection. And in any case I emailed it to them before also posting a copy, so they were in fact 5 days late. The fact that they sent an auto-response saying that they auto-delete attachements is neither here nor there and is their problem (in my opinion) since it states on the NTO that you can appeal by email. And nothing about not being able to attach the appeal to the email.
Will post the Notice of Rejection very shortly.
-
Let's see the rejection letter.
To appeal to the tribunal you need to follow the instructions in this letter.
It does seem they've busted the 56 day limit.
But also note that the time period starts with the date the council receive the reps, not when they are sent out.
-
Let's see the rejection letter.
To appeal to the tribunal you need to follow the instructions in this letter.
It does seem they've busted the 56 day limit.
-
The latest on this is...
* Council sent me an NTO as stated above
* NTO stated various methods to appeal, including post and email
* I sent them an appeal by email on 11 March at 11pm. All of the appeal was contained in email attachments but the body of the appeal told them I was appealing etc.
* I received an auto-reply stating that any attachments would be auto-deleted (of questionable lawfulness since this wasn't mentioned on the NTO)
* In any case I was already planning to post them a copy of the appeal. I did this on 12 March, sent it 1st class and have proof of postage.
On 12 May, at 4:59pm (!), the council sent me a Notice of Rejection stating that they were responding to my "letter" which they claim was "dated 14 March" (it wasn't, obviously).
So... The council were aware that I had sent them an appeal by 12 March (next working day after the email was sent) regardless of whether they deleted the attachments, which they shouldn't have done anyway in my opinion. In any case they are legally deemed to have been aware of my posted copy two days after postage... So 14 March, right?
So at worst (for them) the 56th day was 7 May. At best it was 9 May. So their Notice of Rejection is either 3 days late or 5 days late, depending on how you view it.
Does all of that mean that all I have to do is write to the appeals tribunal, inform them of the above and show them proof of postage? And I'm almost guaranteed to win?
Just wondering whether it's actually worth including in my tribunal appeal all of my actual responses to the content of the Notice of Rejection? If it's so clear cut that I'll win on the fact that their response was past the legal deadline then I won't bother.
-
56 days is replying to formal reps to an NTO.
They may have replied but it went missing - ask them if they sent a rejection.
-
Regarding this PCN I made representations to the council (roughly detailing what I said in post #22) in writing well within the 28 day period. I have proof of postage for this. I received no response to this appeal. Today, over 3 months after the PCN was issued I got a Notice To Owner, which I will attach to this post.
My questions are:
a) Are the council allowed to simply ignore the representations I made to them, not bother responding and then simply issue a Notice To Owner?
b) Are the council allowed to issue it over 3 months after the PCN and without explanation for the delay? My understanding is that the absolute statutory limit is 6 months from the PCN being issued but that they are usually expected to respond within 56 days. But this info is from ChatGPT, which may be wrong of course.
Notice To Owner can be viewed here:
https://imgur.com/a/mSogw2a
-
So if there is any legal way I can avoid paying and preferably get them to make it clearer then I will do.
2 separate questions really.
Avoid paying? Irrespective of the contravention itself - which has been the focus to date- there's always a chance an authority might commit a procedural impropriety en route to adjudication. I don't know enough about EH's track record to say.
Yep, hopefully
Get them to make it clearer? Are you a resident, if so do you know how to contact your local councillor, could you obtain/do you actually have compelling evidence that the restriction is being misunderstood by drivers en masse(how they could, I don't know. Who nowadays thinks that when faced with a length of street without any markings their response should be whoopee, I've found a free parking oasis in what is otherwise a heavily regulated town centre?) which you could present as circumstantial evidence with enough substance to get the matter registered at political level?
I'm not a resident of Hertford or any area administered by East Herts council so presumably I can't raise it at political level.
-
You didn't see the entry signs - or saw them and didn't know what they meant. Despite it being only last Saturday, you first couldn't recall how you got your car in that position but now you can categorically say 'that this isn't the direction I initially entered the RPZ from'?
Because I know the way that I came into Hertford and which way I first drove down Bull Plain. I also know how the car got into that position, which was because I turned around before parking, obviously. I just can't recall for sure whether I passed the zone ends sign and went back past the entry sign before parking. I don't believe I've contradicted myself in anything I've said. And yes, either way I would have passed the entry sign at the other end either way, presuming it's still there and wasn't obstructed.
You get two bites at the council before an appeal so why not send at least a challenge on the signage not being clear enough but it does seem as though you concede you didn't know about RPZs.
Yes, I think I will do that. Is not knowing about RPZs a concession? In my opinion they can't expect every driver to know the intricacies of every parking regulation.
Have a look at the RPZ section in this to see if you can spot any guidance the council hasn't followed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
Firstly, regarding the entry sign which I must have passed, it literally couldn't be any closer to a no entry sign to an adjoining street. So that's 15.2.3 contravened by the council. It's not even 100% clear that the RPZ is not in the one way road which is no entry from that direction.
Secondly, there are disabled bays within the RPZ and the council also appears to be letting disabled drivers park outside of the bays. But neither is stated on the entry sign...
"Where there is some provision of on‑street parking or loading within the
zone, this is indicated on the lower panel of the entry sign"
With regards to 15.3.1, "signs within the zone indicating the prohibition of waiting... are prescribed...". Prescribed presumably meaning mandatory.
It continues... "The aim should be to place signs strategically so that where drivers might be tempted to stop,
they can see a sign". They have clearly failed to do that in my opinion because no repeater sign is visible from where I parked.
So yes, I will try challenging it on these grounds and also send them a URL for a photo with a view from where my car was actually parked which if they do not bother looking at, will apparently invalidate the PCN alone.
-
So if there is any legal way I can avoid paying and preferably get them to make it clearer then I will do.
2 separate questions really.
Avoid paying? Irrespective of the contravention itself - which has been the focus to date- there's always a chance an authority might commit a procedural impropriety en route to adjudication. I don't know enough about EH's track record to say.
Get them to make it clearer? Are you a resident, if so do you know how to contact your local councillor, could you obtain/do you actually have compelling evidence that the restriction is being misunderstood by drivers en masse(how they could, I don't know. Who nowadays thinks that when faced with a length of street without any markings their response should be whoopee, I've found a free parking oasis in what is otherwise a heavily regulated town centre?) which you could present as circumstantial evidence with enough substance to get the matter registered at political level?
-
You didn't see the entry signs - or saw them and didn't know what they meant. Despite it being only last Saturday, you first couldn't recall how you got your car in that position but now you can categorically say 'that this isn't the direction I initially entered the RPZ from'?
You get two bites at the council before an appeal so why not send at least a challenge on the signage not being clear enough but it does seem as though you concede you didn't know about RPZs.
Have a look at the RPZ section in this to see if you can spot any guidance the council hasn't followed:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
-
Repeater signs are not mandatory.
You were in the smallest RPZ I've seen on this forum.
If you turned round then you must have seen the 'Zone ends' sign facing you and at far less than 25m.
You know the parameters, the choice is yours.
I saw that Zone Ends sign yes, no other info conveyed in that sign other than literally "Zone Ends". And I saw one or two repeater signs on the other side of the road saying I couldn't wait/park there. Which is why I parked on the side I did where no signs were present/visible. There were a load of other cars parked on that side (unlike the side with the signs), none of which at the time had PCNs on, which further reassured me that it must be ok to park there. The reason for that seems to be that the council is further adding to the confusion by not enforcing the restrictions on people who have disabled badges on display, even outside of the disabled bays marked (just about, badly maintained) on the road and shown on the map of the Order.
Frankly, I did not even know of the existence of RPZs until I got that PCN. I knew of CPZs which have yellow lines but I passed both car and motorbike theory tests before RPZs became a thing (RPZs are now in the theory test).
Once again I appreciate the advice you've given. And you may even be right as to the way an adjudicator would react. But you aren't going to convince me that it is actually right or fair to extort money from people on the basis of restrictions which were not made perfectly clear to them at the time. And which were not clear to many others going by the amount of PCNs the council is handing out in that particular RPZ.
So if there is any legal way I can avoid paying and preferably get them to make it clearer then I will do.
-
Repeater signs are not mandatory.
You were in the smallest RPZ I've seen on this forum.
If you turned round then you must have seen the 'Zone ends' sign facing you and at far less than 25m.
You know the parameters, the choice is yours.
-
+1.
But IMO please don't test the patience of the adjudicator with:
Fair enough, appreciate the advice. However firstly I am not sure I even passed that sign because I initially didn't drive into the RPZ from that direction. Whether I turned around and parked before or after I possibly exited and reentered the zone I frankly can't remember.
But as I think the sign at the other end has already been posted because it's there, then the point is not material.
It's material to this conversation because you said that seeing as I was no further than 25-30m past the entry sign nearest to where I was parked, then I would lose. And my point was that I'm not at all sure that I had passed that particular entry sign. I'm not trying to test anyone's patience, I'm just stating an honest fact because I can categorically say that this isn't the direction I initially entered the RPZ from.
Now yes it may be that either way they look it at as "you went past an entry sign at some point so tough luck" (which is not fair or reasonable in my opinion). But that wasn't the point under contention at the time.
-
+1.
But IMO please don't test the patience of the adjudicator with:
Fair enough, appreciate the advice. However firstly I am not sure I even passed that sign because I initially didn't drive into the RPZ from that direction. Whether I turned around and parked before or after I possibly exited and reentered the zone I frankly can't remember.
But as I think the sign at the other end has already been posted because it's there, then the point is not material.
The burden of proof in these proceedings is balance of probability and IMO unless you categorically state that you did not enter from that direction - which I don't think hitherto you've suggested - then the adjudicator would find as a fact that you did and refer to the sign in the CEO's evidence in making their decision.
-
OP, you have the absolute right in law to take the council all the way up to adjudication to test the matter. Opinion on here is that you are unlikely to succeed, but only you can progress the matter. Who knows, you might win, you just have to risk the full PCN penalty to find out.
-
The CEO's photos show a clear regulatory sign at the start of the RPZ in your direction of travel o/s no. 27.
You passed this and were no more than 25-30m into the zone.
I would not test an adjudicator with a defence based around adequacy of signage.
Fair enough, appreciate the advice. However firstly I am not sure I even passed that sign because I initially didn't drive into the RPZ from that direction. Whether I turned around and parked before or after I possibly exited and reentered the zone I frankly can't remember.
But secondly, one of the photos shows a warden has taken a photo from the repeater sign attempting to show my car in the distance. Which is neither here nor there because the sign cannot be seen from my car, it is in fact not visible at all from where my car was actually parked. So let's send them a photo of the view from my car itself looking towards the repeater sign that cannot be seen. And let's give them a URL to actually view the image with that has a view counter. And let's see if they even bother considering this evidence. And from reading here, if they don't then my understanding is that they have just invalidated their PCN. I can send them this URL in writing by post presumably? No need to make it easy for them by sending it electronically, unless I have to.
This is in view of the fact that the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, Section 15 states "the aim should be to place [repeater] signs [within an RPZ] strategically so that where drivers might be tempted to stop,
they can see a sign". The council have at the least failed to do that because where I parked no repeater sign on my side of the road can be seen and no other sign explicitly stating I could not park can be seen either.
-
The CEO's photos show a clear regulatory sign at the start of the RPZ in your direction of travel o/s no. 27.
You passed this and were no more than 25-30m into the zone.
I would not test an adjudicator with a defence based around adequacy of signage.
-
The zone entry sign here is presumably at the other end to the one I posted on Google Maps. You should satisfy yourself you did pass a sign or not.
Restricted parking zones do away with intrusive yellow lines and were introduced for small central historic areas but are now used in small residential zones
(https://i.ibb.co/FKwV4nj/hert6.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/nnGqFzx/hert5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SmVR8LP/hert4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hDv7D4z/hert3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/6y7nQDN/hert2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/yNjbswB/hert1.jpg)
-
Basically you have to put it to the touch at adjudication because the council are unlikely to give way. To do this, you have to wait for the Notice to Owner, submit formal representions, then when rejected, register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Of course, you have to risk the full penalty, which is about half of what it would be in London.
I'm afraid this is how the system works, and has worked since 1991.
Yeah, it's £70 full penalty. Or £35 if I pay within 14 days / don't formally appeal. Don't want to give them even more money than I feel they are already extorting me (and likely plenty of others) for. But at the same time quite prepared to try and prove them wrong if I've got half a chance of winning. Thanks for the help anyway, I'll have a think about it.
-
Basically you have to put it to the touch at adjudication because the council are unlikely to give way. To do this, you have to wait for the Notice to Owner, submit formal representions, then when rejected, register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Of course, you have to risk the full penalty, which is about half of what it would be in London.
I'm afraid this is how the system works, and has worked since 1991.
-
OP, I have to say that I think you wouuld lose at adjudication, because the RPZ is so small. RPZs do not have road markings and were introduced by HMG to cater for places where carriageway markings would be intrusive and ugly in places there there is a street scene that is in need of protection. Repeater signs are NOT a legal requirement. The duty on councils for signing a restriction is in the LATOR regulations, in particular Regulation 18 : -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Whether signage is adequate is subjective; the council will say its all perfect, yet you disagree, so the matter can be taken to the adjudicators. For a street 290 feet long, an adjudicator may well decide that the entry signs are sufficient.
I see, thanks for this helpful info.
Of course we just give advice here based on experience of previous cases, but you have the absolute right in law to take the council to the adjudicators. All you are risking is the full PCN penalty, with no additional costs.
Yep, fair enough. If I can demonstrate that the council is handing out far more PCNs inside this RPZ than it was before they removed the yellow lines then do you think that is likely to help my case?
Because if you look on Google Maps they had an RPZ there in 2018 with the same "no waiting" restriction as can be seen here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xo1CqdTWJ5bSTE6b7?g_st=ac
However, instead of repeater signs they had yellow lines as can be seen here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8gvnkBRbjUDCD6A57?g_st=ac
It seems to me that if they are handing out far more PCNs now than they were in 2018 (which I highly suspect they are) then their signage is clearly not "adequate". But is that likely to be the way an adjudicator sees it?
Presumably the PCN statistics can be obtained via an FOI request.
-
OP, I have to say that I think you wouuld lose at adjudication, because the RPZ is so small. RPZs do not have road markings and were introduced by HMG to cater for places where carriageway markings would be intrusive and ugly in places there there is a street scene that is in need of protection. Repeater signs are NOT a legal requirement. The duty on councils for signing a restriction is in the LATOR regulations, in particular Regulation 18 : -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Whether signage is adequate is subjective; the council will say its all perfect, yet you disagree, so the matter can be taken to the adjudicators. For a street 290 feet long, an adjudicator may well decide that the entry signs are sufficient.
Of course we just give advice here based on experience of previous cases, but you have the absolute right in law to take the council to the adjudicators. All you are risking is the full PCN penalty, with no additional costs.
-
Indeed IMO you are!
The order shows that the extent of the RPZ in Bullplain is 290 ft. with single entrances either end. Not exactly a labyrinth.
But the choice is yours.
-
If you pass the gateway signs, then you're subject to the restriction. Your argument seems to rely upon discretionary repeater signs.
IMO, an adjudicator would start with your obligations as a driver, not the council's to provide reams of repeater signs. Was there a gateway sign which you passed but didn't observe?
I expect that there was yes. If you look at the evidence provided by the warden one of the photos is of a zone entry sign. Where exactly this sign is I don't know.
However my understanding is that the repeater signs are mandatory, not discretionary. But how often are these signs expected to be repeated along the road?
Personally if I was an adjudicator then I would want to see that the council had clearly and adequately communicated the restrictions. And a lack of repeater signs indicates to me that they have not met this threshold. Particularly when they could have used yellow lines either in addition or in place of a Restricted Parking Zone to make it perfectly clear. And particularly as for some odd reason there were previously yellow lines that they have gone to the trouble of actually removing and not replacing.
But I appreciate that you may be playing devil's advocate and that I am coming at this from my own perspective.
-
If you pass the gateway signs, then you're subject to the restriction. Your argument seems to rely upon discretionary repeater signs.
IMO, an adjudicator would start with your obligations as a driver, not the council's to provide reams of repeater signs. Was there a gateway sign which you passed but didn't observe?
-
I'm getting an error entering those details here:
https://hertsocm.itsvc.co.uk/ETOCM/EastHerts/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/ETOCM/EastHerts/details.aspx
Yes, I also came across that URL. It doesn't work, you have to enter the details here instead:
https://www.hertsparking.co.uk/eastherts/default.aspx
By the way, under the photos they've provided as evidence, the only things that indicate any restriction is a Restricted Parking Zone sign, which of course is not visible from where I parked. And a small repeater sign which is also not visible from where I parked. The fact that the warden has taken a photo right next to the sign and that my car can just about be seen quite a bit further down the road is neither here nor there. Obviously my car is a lot bigger than the very small repeater sign. Therefore, from where my car was parked, that sign was not visible. Which is presumably why the warden has provided no photo from where my car was parked attempting to show the repeater sign!
Edit: This is the view from more or less exactly where my car was parked looking towards the repeater sign photographed by the warden. As you can see from the photo, it isn't visible in any way whatsoever...
https://imgur.com/a/gzUKHgC
-
I'm getting an error entering those details here:
https://hertsocm.itsvc.co.uk/ETOCM/EastHerts/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/ETOCM/EastHerts/details.aspx
-
There must be a zone entry sign to a restricted parking zone. Seems to be one on Google Maps. Seems they've dispensed with yellow lines since.
Please type the PCN number and car registration here as your pic is a bit fuzzy.
Here's the order.
https://cdn-eastherts.onwebcurl.com/s3fs-public/documents/The_Hertfordshire_Bull_Plain__Hertford_Restricted_Parking_Zone_Order_2018.pdf
Yes apologies about the fuzzy PCN photo, PCN number is ET3502870A, vehicle reg is BP18UUK.
Thank you very much for that copy of the order, I'll have a read of that as soon as I get the chance.
-
There must be a zone entry sign to a restricted parking zone. Seems to be one on Google Maps. Seems they've dispensed with yellow lines since.
Please type the PCN number and car registration here as your pic is a bit fuzzy.
Here's the order.
https://cdn-eastherts.onwebcurl.com/s3fs-public/documents/The_Hertfordshire_Bull_Plain__Hertford_Restricted_Parking_Zone_Order_2018.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/82ydE3Z.png)
-
PCN received for parking in a Restricted Parking Zone. No yellow lines, loads of other cars parked on the same bit of road when I parked, no visible repeater signs whatsoever on my side of the road stating that I couldn't park there.
I was parked outside 21 Bull Plain, I later found that the nearest (very small) repeater sign on my side of the road was a further 50 yards or so up the road outside 3 Bull Plain! Once again, this was definitely not visible from where I parked.
The only visible parking signs from where I parked was a zone ends sign further up the road (which I did not notice at the time) and a small repeater sign on the other side of the road stating no parking at any time. There were no cars parked on that side of the road and a load of other cars parked on my side. I therefore assumed it was fine to park where I did.
When I went back to Bull Plain the day after getting a ticket, there were two other cars in the same part of Bull Plain with parking tickets on them. Clearly people are not realising and the council must be fully aware from the amount of tickets being generated that they are not communicating the parking restrictions well enough.
What are my chances of being able to successfully contest this extortion?
No point in looking on Google Maps as in the last picture they took a few years ago there were actual yellow lines there. Instead I've attached photos of where I parked, the nearest repeater sign and the PCN.
(https://i.imgur.com/K0SjjpZ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3umkXUp.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/XykelNb.jpeg)