Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Barbudaprince on August 16, 2023, 11:31:59 am
-
DNC'ed.
-
Well there's two points to be made here:
1) TFL has not reoffered the discount, so the penalty stays the same even if you appeal to the tribunal and lose, so there's nothing to be lost in carrying on.
2) The notice of rejection is confusing as your latest question illustrates, and we've won on this before, see these cases:
Nayeem Haque v Transport for London (2220767288, 15 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KavlK0nNvWS2eI9ICkqjBQRg9-L-2mHc)
Mike Welch v Transport for London (2230428700, 18 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ijJW4O3zHz-LOkVRi4QHmdf983n1yyJ8)
Lubavitch Synagogue v Transport for London (2230535074, 5 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xokOkjdoJf0e5CBjBP7smnErCrMxps0m/view)
I'm going to drop you a PM.
-
Hi again,
Received the attached formal response from TFL to my representation. They have rejected my challenge.
Some things in the letter I have noted:
They have misspelt Gunnersbury Avenue. I don't think this a procedural impropriety though reading other cases?
They have addressed the letter to me incorrectly by missing out the full street address number. It should be 560-564, they have put 560 only.
It says in the letter that 50% amount can be paid, is that £80 (half of the £160 outstanding balance ) or is the £160 the 50% amount so full amount is £320?
What are the chance of a success in this case? Since speaking to someone at Hounslow Highways , and reviewing responses here, I have established that the online GIS ownership maps are misleading, and therefore it is TFL highways land, and so my original representation to PCN is flawed.
I am happy to be represented by a third party if there is a chance of success. If I should pay this as chances are slim then let me know. Having undertaking the previous steps I am more minded to take that risk.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@Barbudaprince you have until 24 January to make representations as the 28 days run from the date of service, which is two working days after the date of posting.
That being said Transport for London will reject anything you say, so there's no point in going into any detail. Just make a representation saying the alleged contravention did not occur.
You'll have to send a letter in the post (the website doesn't appear to allow an online representation for some reason) so I recommend you send it special delivery.
Done and have proof the representation was received at Red Routes on 24th January. Will await further correspondence before replying to this case.
-
@Barbudaprince you have until 24 January to make representations as the 28 days run from the date of service, which is two working days after the date of posting.
That being said Transport for London will reject anything you say, so there's no point in going into any detail. Just make a representation saying the alleged contravention did not occur.
You'll have to send a letter in the post (the website doesn't appear to allow an online representation for some reason) so I recommend you send it special delivery.
-
Hi,
So from the date of service of the NTO as 2/01/2024 I have 28 days to provide representation which will be 30/01/2024.
It looks like the NtO was sent 4 months and a week after the contravention occurred and Incandescent has advised this may fail on timeliness and fairness test, could this be pursued?
Any advice on where I can go with this would be gratefully appreciated please.
-
Accompanying docs PT 3
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Accompanying docs PT 2
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Accompanying docs PT 1
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi all,
I have now received the NTO, see attached. I will upload the accompanying docs in the next post.
Please could you advise where I can go from here.
Many thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for your response.
To summarise my PCN status is as follows:
02 January 2024
NTO/Enforcement Notice Batched
N/A
14 December 2023
OnHold: SUS100 Under IT Investigation
N/A
03 October 2023
On Hold: SUS09 - DVLA Action
N/A
04 September 2023
On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received (02/10/2023)
N/A
04 September 2023
On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received (02/10/2023)
N/A
15 August 2023
Email dispatched to: prince_f50@hotmail.com Subj Representation receipted
N/A
15 August 2023
On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
Contravention date:
15 August 2023 at 09:46
-
Is there not a time limit where they have to served the notice to keeper by?
Yes, there is, and it is 6 month from contravention date. However anything over 3 months could well fall on the fairness and timeliness test.
Here's what the Statutory Guidance says on issuing the NtO for a parking PCN: -
Issuing the notice to owner
If the penalty charge is not paid the enforcement authority may issue a notice to owner (NtO). The purpose of this is to ensure that the PCN was received by the vehicle owner and to remind the vehicle owner that the payment in full is now due and, if it is not paid within a further 28 days, it may be increased.
The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO. The regulations set out the information that the NtO must give.
-
Hi all - thank you for your help so far.
I'm a bit confused as I haven't received any correspondence further to the PCN I received. When I look at TFL PCN page the last update is from the first week of October and says "DVLA action" but nothing since...and it has been nearly two months.
Is there not a time limit where they have to served the notice to keeper by?
Thanks
-
When you get the notice to owner, post it up on here and we'll help you draft a formal representation.
-
Ok thanks. So is it worth me formally appealing with the grounds used on my informal representation? Or should I be adopting a different approach i.e can TFL prove the PCN was issued properly as you advised before.
I am the registered keeper, yes.
-
You haven't made an appeal, you've only sent an informal representation. TFL is required to consider it but it is not required to respond.
It appears they have now requested the registered keeper details so a notice to owner will be sent to the registered keeper, is that you?
The notice to owner supersedes any outstanding informal representations, so formal representations will need to be made.
-
Afternoon,
What does this mean please (see attached) ? Why has it suddenly appeared but I have had no correspondence regarding my appeal ?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For later:
The GLA Roads (No.3) Designation Order 2008 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1dmzc0AJXf0tw_JL5aRpLNt5nO-dbq-St)
The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Hounslow) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1N6WtYcHxhigtu5GPhJ4-ivu7dFEvBQ-D)
The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Hounslow) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 Variation Order 2016 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Xzfe_vB_Mdbhp5AWdSIgCRipN9s_6S3P)
The GLA Roads And GLA Side Roads (Hounslow) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 The A4 and A406 GLA Road (Great West Road and Gunnersbury Avenue) Variation Order 2017 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1v0Dr-o2t93Dje04AghQ1kuhLxkEC4J-u)
-
I am not sure how I can show you what I sent but a summary below.
My representation was made back when I received the PCN (15th August 2023). I appealed on the grounds that it is not TFL land - based on their public GIS asset maps appended to initial post - so how could they possibly enforce on it. I admittedly appealed without understanding the full context of how this can be TFL land and the maps are unclear, this was clarified by John UK.
-
Please show us what you sent on 15 August.
-
AHH very interesting...re improper procedure
I appealed on 15th August .
Not sure what that 4th September entry is about
-
Did you send something on 4 September? The case history suggests you did?
(https://i.imgur.com/MFznHqf.png)
The FOI response suggests the PCSO likely wasn't wearing a uniform in accordance with The Traffic Management Act 2004, which would be a procedural impropriety.
If "they no longer give them out and it is only a handful of PCSOs that still wear them" I would suggest it's for TFL to show he was wearing one, rather than for you to show that he wasn't.
-
Hi.
My representation was made back when I received the PCN (15th August 2023). I appealed on the grounds that it is not TFL land - based on their public GIS asset maps appended to initial post - so how could they possibly enforce on it. I admittedly appealed without understanding the full context of how this can be TFL land and the maps are unclear, this was clarified by John UK.
With regards to your FOI request, in plain English does this mean that the CEO who do not have proper uniform therefore cannot issue PCNs ? I am struggling to see the relevance of the MPS to my case. If I do not have Ringo footage how do I prove they wore the incorrect uniform.
It does seem their reply was lacking in the most part considering the questions asked...
-
You apparently made a representation today, what did you say?
I've had this (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1F2LGqm9JyS63F4pv14-XTpugts4YK-r8) back from the MET, which is very helpful.
-
GF8354284A
-
Please give us the PCN number.
-
Thank you for your reply and consideration.
Unfortunately I don't have access to any Ringo data from the houses on that street so cannot confirm whether the PCN was issued fairly or not. Do the images captured by the PCSO count you can see motorbike in the background as he issuing the PCN?
-
I'll find out what all the restrictions are, none of the orders posted so far on this thread have anything to do with the restrictions currently in force (and the gazette notices are just notices, it's the orders that count).
The most obvious argument here is that if the PCN was issued by a PCSO, the PCSO uniform does not comply with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 76(4) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/76), which would be a procedural impropriety. If anyone along that road has any ringgo footage confirming if it was a PCSO, that would be extremely helpful.
-
Well according to the gazette no.4 the white parking bays are:
(12) formalises the ‘Parking at any Time’ Parking and Disabled Persons’ vehicles bays in the unnamed service outside Nos.127-137 and No.139 Gunnersbury Avenue.
It's odd because the white parking bays are also located in front of residents dropped kerbs so what takes precedence here - the local authority or TFL parking enforcement?
Noted regarding legitimate expectation. Worth noting that as it is a school there are often many residents parked there on the double red routes (not just for pickups) but for hours at a time attending school plays I guess...
-
A bit more digging produced these - it is pretty obvious TfL consider they have jurisdiction over this piece of road -
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58417-321853
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58417-321849
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-55475-520
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58175-275
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2542808
FRankly, I don't think it's looking hopeful, but wait to see what others say.
You were parked on DRL, wholly outside a parking bay.
Your best line of approach may be legitimate expectation.
I'm still intrigued to know what restriction (if any) are on the white parking bays.
-
So the basic TRO states this in the schedule:
Lengths of the trunk road red route on which stopping is prohibited at all times.
Table
(1) (2)
Item Length of Road
1. Gunnersbury Avenue, between its junction with Hanger Lane and Uxbridge Road, Ealing Common and the roundabout at the junction of Gunnersbury Avenue, Chiswick High Road and Great West Road, known as Chiswick Roundabout.
2. Hanger Lane, the main trunk road, between its southernmost junction with the Hanger Lane Gyratory System and its junction with Uxbridge Road, Ealing Common, and Gunnersbury Avenue.
3. Hanger Lane Gyratory System, those lengths of highway in the London Borough of Ealing comprised in the gyratory system situated at or adjacent to the junctions of Hanger Lane, North Circular Road, Twyford Abbey Road and Western Avenue.
4. North Circular Road, between its junction with the Hanger Lane Gyratory System and the common boundary of 11 and 12 Beechwood Gardens, North Circular Road.
5. The roundabout at the junction of Gunnersbury Avenue, Chiswick High Road and Great West Road, known as Chiswick Roundabout.
It does not specify the unnamed service road I parked on. I wouldn't
say that was completely watertight...
Anyhow I will state what the outcome of my appeal is.
Thanks
-
TRO is attached to initial post - it is a file named "data".
EDIT
Found it
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/529/contents/made
it merely confirms the experimental order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1090/contents/made
Nothing to say the unnamed service road is not part of the A406
This seems to be the basic traffic order
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2386/contents/made
-
Hi JoHN UK.
Sorry struggled to see the Google maps but it is adjacent to International school of London, gunnersbury avenue.
TRO is attached to initial post - it is a file named "data". Note TRO relates to recent amend and is not the original TRO for this road.
Yes I am the driver.
Please see attached photos from the PCN and photos of the back of PCN note, note they didn't include any signage in their photos but there is a no parking red route sign there, but also parking bays which is odd !
I cannot find the text from appeal but I essentially argued that the land is not within curtilage of the public highway per their mapping so the PCN was issued without the required authority. I speculated that perhaps the red route markings were added in error as the contractor believed the private land was a continuation of the correctly red routed A406 which runs adjacent.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here?
https://goo.gl/maps/D6EpujPSJG7dsnTc7
IF so
implies that land parked on is not publicly owned and maintained highway
Well someone is maintaining it and painting an awaful lot of road markings on it, including DRL, parking bays and footpath parking, albeit all without accompanying signs, and a 20mph speed restriction.
Other than these maps and the TRO, I cannot substantively determine that this road is private.
Have you got the TRO? This may have your answer.
I don't think it can be totally private, as the public have unfettered pedestrian and vehicular access.
The driver and other residents have parked there for a significant duration(> a year) without recieving a PCN.
This gives rise to legitimate expectation.
Are you the driver? Unlike the private parking forum, you can say so on this forum.
The other residents should know the status of where they live. Are they prepared to give statements about parking?
As the registered keeper, I have appealed the PCN on grounds that TFL do not have powers for enforcement on privately owned land.
Please post up a copy of what you wrote, and the back of the PCN (to check for errors in the'small print'). Also TfL's photos from their website).
-
Good day,
I received attached TFL penalty charge notice yesterday stating that their CEO suspected the driver for parking on a TFL red route or clearway.
The driver, having been aware of the transport for London property maps which implies that land parked on is not publicly owned and maintained highway, decided to park there due to lack of available bays. The driver and other residents have parked there for a significant duration(> a year) without recieving a PCN.
If you refer to the attached maps (taken from TFL website) you will note the extents of TfL ownership and the red dot which marks where the vehicle was parked.
I also attach a TRO document which refers to this road that parked on as an unnamed service road. Other than these maps and the TRO, I cannot substantively determine that this road is private.
As the registered keeper, I have appealed the PCN on grounds that TFL do not have powers for enforcement on privately owned land.
Have I gone about this correctly? I would welcome any advice.
I have redacted the sensitive information but would happily share the details if required.
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]