Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Polopo on March 03, 2025, 03:52:58 pm
-
As I posted previously, they're judges in their own cause at present and, as here, will tell you that black is white or vice-versa if it suits them without any regard for the law.
It's shocking, but there you are. The problem is actually nothing to do with parking legislation, it's a problem of local authority finances and accountability. For info, the reason for this is that penalty charge income (despite dwarfing all other third party income other than council tax!)is NOT treated as debt for the purposes of internal financial scrutiny, therefore every Do Not Contest at adjudication, every cancellation, every adverse adjudication decision escapes the scrutiny of internal audit who otherwise want to know the whereabouts of every biro with a gnawed top!
You just have to see it through to the end by appealing and make this end the bitterest you can for them by asking for costs against the authority.
Thank you H C, its astonishing they do not acknowledge or instill the law even when presented. This whole process really has opened my eyes how badly run these authorities are.
"Cost against authority" ;D I will most definitely take this to adjudicator. Should I add anything extra other than the representation I provided? It seems to cover the points pretty clearly
-
As I posted previously, they're judges in their own cause at present and, as here, will tell you that black is white or vice-versa if it suits them without any regard for the law.
It's shocking, but there you are. The problem is actually nothing to do with parking legislation, it's a problem of local authority finances and accountability. For info, the reason for this is that penalty charge income (despite dwarfing all other third party income other than council tax!)is NOT treated as debt for the purposes of internal financial scrutiny, therefore every Do Not Contest at adjudication, every cancellation, every adverse adjudication decision escapes the scrutiny of internal audit who otherwise want to know the whereabouts of every biro with a gnawed top!
You just have to see it through to the end by appealing and make this end the bitterest you can for them by asking for costs against the authority.
-
Frustratingly I have received a rejection for the representation. I've tried uploading the letter but can't attach more than 4. Here are the direct links:
(https://i.ibb.co/35C2XZH4/20250503-111315.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/CpR8v1XP/20250503-111048.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mVRwgknt/20250503-111105.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4n5S9Dtm/20250503-111152.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/kg9bGY9J/20250503-111218.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jkCCr36t/20250503-111232.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1Y00KVB8/20250503-111243.jpg)
This is the representation I sent them:
I am disappointed you are trying to enforce this PCN, despite my initial challenge pointing out I was using the bay legitimately for 2 hours while taking my mother, a disabled person with a blue badge, for a meal.
I now must draw your attention to your position that the traffic sign in situ- Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must displáy a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist
to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention. I draw your attention to key cases attached 'Miss Michelle Dhillon - v - Leicester City Council' (2019) and 'Mr William Watson - v - St Helens Council' (2020), where it was successfully ruled contravention did not occur based on 'There is no requirement to display a time clock in addition to a blue badge in a time limited parking place'
As an authority you either accept this argument or not. But if not, then you are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion. Furthermore
Procedural Impropriety. The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations. The mandatory warning regarding 'if representation are made but a Notice of Owner is still issued the owner must respond to the Notice of Owner' is missing from the PCN.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I would start it off:
I am disappointed you are trying to enforce this PCN, despite my initial challenge pointing out I was using the bay legitimately for 2 hours while taking my mother, a disabled person with a blue badge, for a meal.
I now must draw your attention to your position that the traffic sign in situ....
etc.
With the other bit I would just say:
I draw your attention to key cases xxxxxx and xxxxxxx.
-
At this stage the authority are judges in their own cause. C'est la vie.
Stamfordman has identified some tribunal decisions which show that the authority's position is incorrect in law.
Sadly, the authority don't recognise this.
Why? Ignorance or bullying? Sorry if this shatters your illusions about your local council, but you just can't get the staff these days....as opposed to my day!
Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety
The authority's position is that the traffic sign in situ - Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must display a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention.
The authority either accept this argument or not. But if not, then they are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion.
Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Thanks so much H C, very eye opening stuff. Should I rewrite based on the information you've said above or do you think the above will suffice in sending as a formal representation?
I was also going to add the following:
Regulations 11 and 12 of the Disabled Person’s (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 sets out the requirements for the display of a Blue Badge. There is no reference in the Regulations to a parking clock or disc. Therefore, no contravention has occurred.
Further supported similar cases attached ‘Miss Michelle Dhillon - v - Leicester City Council’ (2019) and ‘Mr William Watson - v - St Helens Council’ (2020), where it was successfully ruled contravention did not occur based on 'There is no requirement to display a time clock in addition to a blue badge in a time limited parking place'
Furthermore Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations. The mandatory warning regarding 'if representation are made but a Notice of Owner is still issued the owner must respond to the Notice of Owner' is missing from the PCN.
-
At this stage the authority are judges in their own cause. C'est la vie.
Stamfordman has identified some tribunal decisions which show that the authority's position is incorrect in law.
Sadly, the authority don't recognise this.
Why? Ignorance or bullying? Sorry if this shatters your illusions about your local council, but you just can't get the staff these days....as opposed to my day!
Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety
The authority's position is that the traffic sign in situ - Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must display a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention.
The authority either accept this argument or not. But if not, then they are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion.
Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
-
Date of NTO is 7 April so need to get on with this.
HC Andersen may oblige. If not I'll help.
Thank you!!
-
Date of NTO is 7 April so need to get on with this.
HC Andersen may oblige. If not I'll help.
-
I've received the NTO and attached. Was away so only just saw it
Should i include the cases stamfordmans mentioned in pdf or is it better to go through H C Andersen approach? Any help with this representation will be super appreciated!
Edit: not sure why it's going landscape in attached...it's portrait when I took photo
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
LATOR = The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/content
3 outta 5 letters. Not too bad! Thanks
-
LATOR = The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/content
-
Welcome to our acronym world!
PCN -penalty charge notice
NTO -notice to owner
CC- charge certificate
OfR- order for recovery
TEC-traffic enforcement centre
WS-witness statement
TSRGD- traffic signs regulations and general directions
RTRA-road traffic regulation act
TMA-traffic management act
JR-judicial review...or Jim Reeves!
I did not realise there would be this many :o I think I've got it.
LATOR - Law and Traffic Order Regulation's?
SOS - I'm sure thats not the help signal :D
-
Welcome to our acronym world!
PCN -penalty charge notice
NTO -notice to owner
CC- charge certificate
OfR- order for recovery
TEC-traffic enforcement centre
WS-witness statement
TSRGD- traffic signs regulations and general directions
RTRA-road traffic regulation act
TMA-traffic management act
JR-judicial review...or Jim Reeves!
-
Having read a couple of the cited cases and the council's response in this case, I suggest a different approach.
IMO, the legal issues here are:
Even if a Traffic Management Order includes provisions that a 'clock' must be displayed in a time-limited BB holders' bay(which I think is permissible), is the traffic sign prescribed under the TSRGD adequate to convey this requirement and would its use meet the council's LATOR duty; and
Even if it did, would the use of the contravention description '...BB in the prescribed manner' be a permissible means to demand a penalty?
IMO, no and no.
1. TSRGD are clear as is the requirement to request the SoS's approval to a varied sign;
2. No. The mandated penalty refers to terms defined in legislation (i.e. BB and prescribed manner) and it does not lie with the council to, shall we say, broaden the meanings of either so as to shoehorn a contravention of a TMO into the mandated penalty grounds.
And IMO there's procedural impropriety in the PCN i.e. the mandatory warning regarding 'if reps are made but a NTO is still issued the owner must respond to the NTO' seems to be missing.
I'm trying to familiarise myself with the acronyms! Thanks for your input I will let you know once I've received the NTO
-
I agree - if it goes to the tribunal it really needs expert representation and CP will probably do it.
But let's wait for the NTO.
-
Having read a couple of the cited cases and the council's response in this case, I suggest a different approach.
IMO, the legal issues here are:
Even if a Traffic Management Order includes provisions that a 'clock' must be displayed in a time-limited BB holders' bay(which I think is permissible), is the traffic sign prescribed under the TSRGD adequate to convey this requirement and would its use meet the council's LATOR duty; and
Even if it did, would the use of the contravention description '...BB in the prescribed manner' be a permissible means to demand a penalty?
IMO, no and no.
1. TSRGD are clear as is the requirement to request the SoS's approval to a varied sign;
2. No. The mandated penalty refers to terms defined in legislation (i.e. BB and prescribed manner) and it does not lie with the council to, shall we say, broaden the meanings of either so as to shoehorn a contravention of a TMO into the mandated penalty grounds.
And IMO there's procedural impropriety in the PCN i.e. the mandatory warning regarding 'if reps are made but a NTO is still issued the owner must respond to the NTO' seems to be missing.
-
I can't find the order. I would wait for the NTO.
Is the car registered to you and is the V5C logbook name/address correct?
Yeah only can find traffic enforcement mentioned above
The car is registered to my father and the address is correct
-
I can't find the order. I would wait for the NTO.
Is the car registered to you and is the V5C logbook name/address correct?
-
I just updated my post with two links to other cases. The first also has links to two key cases.
Have read through both thanks. I've tried finding the traffic policy for Barking/Dagenham just for further peace of mind and the only document I can find with mention of disabled exemption is the linked below document which states "The Blue Badge Scheme is more correctly known as the Disabled Person's Parking
Exemption. The badge conveys a number of benefits to the holder, including an
exemption from waiting restrictions (single and double yellow lines). Badge holders
may park for up to three hours on single or double yellow lines (provided a loading
ban - yellow kerb blips - is not in place) and a clock is displayed"
So no mention of disabled bay parking requiring timer just like other councils
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://lbbd.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s57862/Parking%2520Policy%2520-%2520App.%2520A%2520Enforcement%2520Policy.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjo1IadzO6LAxW-XEEAHf9lAHUQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0VjV0DALVRRcNVnPvPBTXa
I guess the next step is waiting for NTO and then writing a formal representation similar to the ones on the other threads?
-
I just updated my post with two links to other cases. The first also has links to two key cases.
-
The bay is 4 hours not 3 hours so they are wrong to say 3 hours here.
But we have key cases that show the clock is not necessary in timed disabled bays. We also know that some councils don't even include the clock in its traffic orders.
I'll did out the necessary later.
Yes exactly the 3hour/4hour thing I noticed too. Thank you for looking into this. It's hard enough to get my mother out the house and things like this makes her worry more
-
The bay is 4 hours not 3 hours so they are wrong to say 3 hours here.
But we have key cases that show the clock is not necessary in timed disabled bays. We also know that some councils don't even include the clock in its traffic orders.
I'll did out the necessary later.
EDIT
Have a look at this thread and the two cases I cited:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hackney-(code-40)-parked-without-displaying-disabled-person's-badge-in-prescribe/msg44271/#msg44271
Also:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/leeds-code-40-parked-in-a-designated-disabled-bay-without-displaying-blue-badge-/
-
Hi
I wish I saw this forum before sending an appeal. Any advice appreciated
<p>Long story short: I parked my car with disabled passenger (my mother) on a disabled bay with badge and timer but the timer fell off dash. The parking attendant was still at the scene when we came back less than 2 hours later (can park for 4 hours) and they knew we were genuine but just said to appeal (maybe they just wanted me off their back). In the appeal I sent reservation of the restaurant to show around the time we would have been there, disabled badge and timer, their photo also displays the badge, also you can see an image of the car breaklights turned on when we left under their own evidence
My initial appeal I sent:
I parked with my mum who is disabled on the disabled bay due to her mobility issues. When we came back under 2 hours (4 hours allowed) we saw the notice which left us confused and shocked as we have badge. It was until looking in the car I saw timer fell off the dash whilst the badge stayed on. The photos show this in the evidence. My mother has anxiety and luckily parking attendant was there who said appeal since she knew it was not deliberate. It was very bad weather that evening, heavy rain and wind, that I chose to park there as it has ease of access for my mother who has trouble walking distances despite the terrible weather. I always comply when taking my mother out and read permit signs. This is first time it's ever happened and i try to be careful. As you can see from badge in your photo, badge/timer in my photo, reservation uploaded and time we left (see last photo with brake lights on in your evidence) we have everything for it to be valid. I can only apologise for this
</p>
Map of contravention:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u2LhxAhKjbhNuoHG9?g_st=ac
I received a rejection uploaded below and all evidence so far including original PCN
(https://i.ibb.co/1tNKZZvY/GetImage.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fYGn19Rg/Get-Image-1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/9k0Q5PX4/Get-Image-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mVBGttnr/Get-Image-4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/WWpZ4n1x/Get-Image-3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/B5fstC8T/20250303-150724.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/WWW3Q0bb/20250303-150702.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/HTdY2CtT/Screenshot-20250303-133155-Drive.jpg)