Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Londoner001 on December 07, 2024, 05:46:02 am
-
Well done. ;D Mr Teper was in fine form and was with you all the way I thought.
A pleasure to attend and meet the OP:
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/suggested-meeting-for-members-at-furnival-street-next-wednesday-12th-andor-17th/msg57878/#msg57878
-
224058036A
The Appellant has attended and is represented by Mr D Dishman.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the level of the carriageway when in Brookside Road on 6 December 2024 at 09:19.
I have allowed this appeal on the grounds of a procedural impropriety. The Regulations require that the Authority provides to the Adjudicator a true copy of the original representations, the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice of Rejection.
I find that there are material differences between the PCN, which was received at the car pound and the one produced to the Tribunal.
The Appellant's representative has drawn my attention to a number of minor differences on the observe of the PCN, which I find are cumulatively not of the most serious. However, on the reverse of the PCN I find that an entire paragraph has been omitted, which I find appears on one and not the other.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Authority has produced a true copy of the PCN as required by the Regulations. I find this to be a procedural impropriety. Where an Adjudicator finds a procedural impropriety they must allow the appeal.
Additionally, if I had not found as above, I would, and in fact do, find that the PCN was not served to the Appellant's vehicle.
The PCN produced by the Appellant, which was handed to her at the car pound, is devoid of any crease markings, which should have appeared if it had been placed in the plastic envelope.
I note that the tow truck was present at the time the PCN was issued, however, I am not satisfied that the PCN was actually placed in the plastic envelope. This is a prerequisite before e vehicle can be removed.
On enlarging the photograph of the plastic wallet I am unable to see any evidence of the PCN inside the wallet.
The appeal is allowed.
-
Hi guys
Today, with the assistance of Mr Mustard, I have won the case! The adjudicator ordered the council to refund £265 (£200 for the towing and £65 for the PCN, which they took on the day they removed the car).
As I was curious, I attended the hearing today and watched the responses of the adjudicator to the presented evidence. The adjudicator's first response was: "not an obvious dropped kerb, is it?"
Mr Mustard then presented my first appeal ground: the PCN was not served. Mr Mustard showed the council's photo with my car and the empty plastic wallet on it. The plastic wallet looked as flat as a 'pancake' as Mr Mustard described it.
Mr Mustard then showed him the PCN that I was handed at the car pound, which did not have any crease at all, indicating that it was not placed in the plastic wallet before they removed my car. The adjudicator asked whether I was served the PCN and I said no as the car was not there when I came back. I didn't know why they had towed away my car until I collected the PCN by hand at the car pound.
They had basically put the empty plastic wallet on the car just for the 'photo' effect without putting the PCN in it at all. This itsef was sufficient for the adjudicator to conclude that the PCN was not served. Within seconds the adjudicator noticed this, he said: "Procedural impropriety. Appeal allowed. The council should refund £265".
After Mr Mustard instructed him, the adjudicator also compared 'the PCN which the tribunal received from the council' and 'the one that I was given by hand at the car pound', which were not same. Mr Mustard helped the adjudicator notice this by comparing the two of them. The adjudicator looked surprised when he noticed this and asked us to give him a copy of my PCN for their own records. The tribunal staff took a copy of it and stamped it to say that they received it.
Within 10 minutes after I attended the hearing, the adjudicator made his decision and allowed the appeal. He did not even think that it was necessary for us to present the other evidence about the council's other wrongdoings, which included:
1) serving an out-of-date notice regarding appeal rights;
2) road conditions (i.e. the dropped kerb was hidden under water in a flooded section of the road);
3) no signs/lines put by the council to alert motorists that there is a hidden dropped kerb there
4) disproportionate action of towing the car rather than only issuing a PCN on a quiet residential road (they towed away my car because it was parked next to a hidden dropped kerb under water)
All in all, it was quite fun to watch the responses of the adjudicator to the evidence presented by Mr Mustard. Many thanks to Mr Mustard for his efforts to prove our points about the council's wrongdoings.
I hope others will do the same and present councils' wrong practices to adjudicators to stop councils abusing their position on motorists.
Good luck to others...
-
This case was won at the tribunal today. To my surprise the OP came so that made 3 of us in the pub afterwards (Hippocrates kept buying me beer after the OP, thanks both, hic). Written decision tomorrow.
-
and there was nothing in it when I collected the car. They had put this plastic empty PCN wallet on the car just for the 'photo' evidence to claim that they issued PCN before removing my car
You don't know this.
And there is NO reason why the PCN should be in the envelope when you recovered your car, in fact there's every reason why it should NOT be because any sensible checks and balances procedure would require the pound to satisfy themselves that the car was removed lawfully which as a minimum would require a PCN. By all means leave the envelope on the car.
So, before you get too virtuous about this, the issue started with you parking at a dropped footway. At the basic level, this is NOT a matter of law, it's a matter of what an adjudicator believes from the photos and IMO it is NOT as clear-cut as others suggest. C'est la vie.
-
Thanks guys for your advice and your offer to represent. I will take up Mr Mustard's offer and update you with the council's responses.
I hope that with the help of Mr Mustard, we will be able to challenge the council's disproportionate and non-compliant actions through the tribunal and avoid other motorists facing similar incidents again. Before issuing such PCNs and removing our vehicles instantly, councils should consider the road conditions, whether the kerb is compliant -the kerb in this case was covered with water and did not have any dimpled paving etc, whether the CEO has permission to both issue a PCN and remove the vehicle at the same time.
What is not acceptable is that Enfield council started the removal process well before issuing the PCN - as Mr Mustard put, the PCN plastic pocket on their photo is as flat as a pancake and there was nothing in it when I collected the car. They had put this plastic empty PCN wallet on the car just for the 'photo' evidence to claim that they issued PCN before removing my car (even if their own photos show that the towing vehicle was right next to my car even if there was no PCN on my car - the photos with the towing vehicle were taken at 09:17hrs, whereas the PCN was issued two minutes later at 09:19hrs.
The car pound staff gave the PCN to me by hand along with the other documents e.g. the receipt of payment and how to challenge form only after paying the amount they demanded. There was no way of me checking the PCN or their evidence on their website to understand what exactly happened (as I did not know the PCN number) before paying for the PCN.
Mr Mustard - thanks for your offer. I will send you a message now.
-
the envelope may simply be empty, placed on the windscreen for effect. I have seen this elsewhere.
A very serious suggestion and IMO one which should not be made loosely.
However, there appear to be clear issues regarding the timing of the removal, issuing of PCN and the role of the OBCEO. I cannot make out the CEO's number on the PCN and if this is the OBCEO then they have very serious problems well beyond this case.
-
take up mrmustards offer ;)
-
I agree that the dropped kerb isn't obvious when under water and there isn't dimpled paving to alert you.
I would also claim that the PCN was not served to the vehicle, as, having looked at the council's photos on line the plastic wallet is as flat as a pancake, the envelope may simply be empty, placed on the windscreen for effect. I have seen this elsewhere.
In addition the representations form refers to the defunct 2007 Regulations which were replaced by the 2022 General Regulations. That is probably enough to win at the tribunal, but not likely to sway the council.
This case might best be managed by a seasoned expert like me, who has beaten over 2,000 of 2,500 PCN which have been fought. For free representation, email mrmustard@zoho.com
-
You have the reasonable point about the earlier conditions when you parked.
We don't have a vehicle removal policy by Enfield but it's likely to be the same as others which is that code 27 is in the highest category of priority for removal and also instant with no waiting.
This predatory tow we usually see with Newham, which tours a removal truck around looking for contraventions. You can argue in this location it is disproportionate but the tribunal is bound by the law not mitigation. But it's point to make.
I'd say the conditions at parking are your best bet but others will check the documentation.
In any case you have reps and then an appeal with no further cost.
(https://i.ibb.co/85VrDPj/image.png)
-
Thanks guys for your responses. I have put in the attached document all the photos shown on the council's appeal website in a chronological order. There are only 6 photos on their website and no other evidence or any other explanation had been provided about the PCN.
I have also copied the documents given at the car pound, which are: a PCN (both sides of it have been copied as you requested), a payment receipt form filled in by the car pound staff, and the appeal form given by them.
I have put my own photo showing the kerb under water where I parked and the uneven surface of the kerb behind my parked car, which had a lowered end too, bringing more confusion about where the actual dropped kerb started and finished.
I looked for the council's rule book about their car towing rules, but could not find it.
I hope these details in the attached document will be sufficient for you. These are the only photos and documents that I have been provided by the council.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
VRM is EX64XXP looking at the pic, can be seen "through" the blanking
-
OP, I suggest you compose your thoughts and approach differently.
There are 3 separate but dependent issues:
1. Was the car in contravention and could a PCN be issued;
2. Was the car removed lawfully, including in accordance with the council's published policy?
3. Procedural matters at the pound.
1. Yes and yes IMO. No point dancing around this. You were parked by a dropped footway which is a statutory prohibition if placed for the purposes specified in the Act. As there's a matching dropped footway immediately opposite IMO there's nothing to stop an adjudicator finding as a fact that its purpose is to assist pedestrians crossing the carriageway. That you claim that it was masked by water won't save you because it's not supported by the council's photos which you've posted.
2. Lawful removal? The OBCEO(onboard CEO cannot issue the PCN, their role is to determine whether a vehicle to which a PCN has been served may be removed/moved and oversee this removal in line with the council's policy*). There must be a PCN affixed to the car before removal can be considered.
3. Procedural matters at the pound. You were not given the PCN and other docs until payment for the vehicle's release had been made. Nothing untoward in this IMO.
*- council's policy. Have you seen this? The council is empowered to remove vehicles but must determine and publish its policy before doing so and officers with the 'enforcement authority' hat must comply with this.
As you've blanked your VRM we cannot see the council's photos.
-
The dropped kerbs are probably there for council mowers.
Or people on scooters
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kibxexVk9iL7G1oy8
-
and a 'traffic warden' is usually based in the tow truck
-
If you read the read this sticky it tells you how to post pics etc.
The PCN was given to you at the pound. The contravention is deemed in the category for instant removal.
We need to see all the paperwork and the council's pics.
There are opposite dropped footways although the one opposite is on a large paved area.
It's a predatory tow as this is a backstreet and the crossing is mid-way and doesn't lead to another path. It isn't where you'd be looking out for a crossing really. The dropped kerbs are probably there for council mowers.
(https://i.ibb.co/SrmZ4KK/image.png)
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6186766,-0.0563611,3a,89.9y,145.88h,75.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK00CSz-rxXHLc0h74y-OyA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D14.494222618108793%26panoid%3DK00CSz-rxXHLc0h74y-OyA%26yaw%3D145.881077273143!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
(https://i.imgur.com/jdX9Wtu.png)
-
Hi guys
Thanks for your responses. I have answered your questions below and provided the list of photos with some explanation in the attached pdf document.
The name of the road Brookside Road N9 and the car was parked right next to a flooded kerb area where the dropped kerb section was not obvious.
I have checked the council's website to view their photo evidence. Based on my observations, my appeal grounds can be summarized as follows:
1) PCN time: In one of their own photos, the car removal truck is shown to be present right next to my car and reversing towards my car to remove it and the time is shown on the photo is 09.17hrs. Whereas the PCN issue time is shown as 09.19hrs i.e. two minutes later. This means that they started the car removal enforcement process well before issuing the PCN, giving no time for me to take my own photo evidence of the area where the car was parked or observe the settings before challenging their decision. In the attached document, you will see their photos showing these times (one of the photos shows the car removal truck right next to my grey VW, reversing towards it but there is no PCN on my car at all - this photo of theirs had been taken at 09.17hrs. The other copied PCN document shows their PCN time, which had been issued at 09.19hrs i.e. two minutes later.) This means that they had decided to remove my car well before issuing the PCN.
2) The same photo also shows that the part of the kerb where I parked had been flooded, making it difficult to see whether there was a dropped kerb there.
3) Uneven kerb surface right behind my parked car - it is not known whether there are two dropped kerbs next to one other or they did it to confuse motorists about where the dropped kerb starts and finishes. In two other photos in the document attached, you can see part of the kerb behind my parked car which looks very different with a slightly pinkish colour and some slightly dropped kerb surface ending towards the carriageway. I felt like the dropped kerb was behind me rather than next to me hidden in the flooded area.
4) No PCN documents were given until after the payment was made: Only after I made the £265 payment, they gave the PCN document along with the payment receipts and the document explaining how to challenge. When I collected the car, all I could see was an empty plastic PCN envelop on the car and nothing in it. It looks like they put it on the car for the sake of doing so.
I have attached the google view of the road and marked the space where the incident occurred to help you understand the road layout. I will send the other photos and documents, but I can only upload up to 4 photos it says, so I may have to send them in another way.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks for your assistance again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am wondering what is on the opposite side of the road, a road we don't yet even know the name of, i.e. is one of the three statutory purposes engaged?
Indeed. So over to the OP to tell us more.
-
I am wondering what is on the opposite side of the road, a road we don't yet even know the name of, i.e. is one of the three statutory purposes engaged?
-
I have to say, looking at your photo, that I don't think any appeal would succeed on the basis of "the dropped kerb wasn't visible to me", because the sloping kerbstones are clearly visible. However, this doesn't mean Game Over as Mr Mustard is expert in seeing the flaws in their PCN and management of the enforcement process.
-
The most important thing to do in this case is to put up all documents, both sides, and only cover up the name and address.
I often win towing cases because the motorist is not given proepr information at the car pound, as does CP8759
So please let us see everything so we can put killer representations together
-
If there is any good news at all in this case, it is that you have paid all there is to pay, so appealing the matter all the way to London Tribunals costs you nothing extra, and if you win, you get all the money back. First you have to submit reps to the council, and when inevitably rejected, you can register an appeal at London Tribunals.
-
For meaningful advice, please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and post here all sides of the unredacted PCN and of any other documents received at the pound, + a GSV link to the location.
-
Yesterday morning at about 8.00am, I had parked my car next to a kerb on a residential road in Edmonton (N9), Enfield, without any parking restrictions. There were no houses around the section of the road where I parked. The road was dark without any lights. The section where I parked was also partly flooded.
When I came back about two hours later, I could not believe that my car was no longer there. I didn't know what to do as this was not what I expected. Thinking that it might have been stolen, I even called the police. In the end, it turned out that the council had removed it by claiming that I had parked next to a dropped kerb. They demanded £65 for the PCN and £200 for the removal before giving the car back. I collected it straight away within 2 hours after parking there and had to pay £265 to get my car back.
In the photo attached, you can see that the section of the kerb where I parked was flooded and it was not obvious from any other signs around there that there was a dropped kerb there. The car pound staff claimed that there was a dropped kerb there in the flooded section of the kerb and that they had removed my car for that reason. How would I see it when the dropped kerb was covered with water?
I believe that this was a disproportionate action by the council and I am worried that this will be the norm from now on as those councils are very desperate for money and they are trying to find all sorts of ways to exploit motorists. In the past, they would put a PCN notice first and let us know if any contravention occurred, show proof etc and give us a chance to appeal. This time, within less than 2 hours after I parked the car, they removed it and I did not get any of the PCN details until I collected the car from the car pound.
I showed the attached photo with the flooded kerb to the car pound staff when I collected the car, but they said I needed to make the full payment of £265 first and then appeal within 28 days to claim my money back.
I would appreciate if you give me some advice before I submit my appeal.
[attachment deleted by admin]