Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Jill on March 11, 2025, 08:48:14 am
-
I was just so relieved to win, Iv got to show the notice of acceptance, I had to read it about 4 times before I understood it
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Mr Chan has decided that for pro bono representation the time of the representative costs the motorist nothing so cannot be claimed.
That leaves only the time of the motorist in considering what the rep tells them and/or conducting their own research.
I have got that up to 3 hours on a yellow box case which will be heard in October but generally it isn't worth my time to bother and I only did so on the yellow box case because Kingston were clearly out of order and as the Adjudicator wants to try and bring them into line having already warned them about their conduct.
I have very little free time which this application would eat into.
Newham are utter b'stards, I'm planning a series of blogs about what cheats they are but again I need time for that.
-
'vexatious'
denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to [imposes penalties without a lawful basis]..cause annoyance
Did you ask for costs or at least a steer from the adjudicator as to whether such a request would be entertained?
-
I had another PCN same parking space’s and yesssss mrmustard won again🥊
-
Case no. 2250222887 by Mr Teper
The Appellant is represented by Mr D Dishman, the Authority did not attend.
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 Holbrook Road on 21 February 2025 at 10:59.
I have allowed this appeal because I find, as a fact, that the location where the Appellant's vehicle was parked is a parking bay. This is created by the Traffic Management Order for Stratford South East 2010 No. 31 at item 146.
The appeal is allowed.
-
Thank you mr mustard, this is the 2nd ticket you have won for me, there’s 1 more to go it has to be a hat trick :D
-
The hearing for this was today, the PCN was cancelled. I will post the written decision up tomorrow.
-
It's raining so back to PCNs. The repeal was deferred by SI 2008 No 757
The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008
I can't claim credit for knowing this. Ian gave me a WestLaw update to the 2003 Act
-
Expect you are right, am on holiday.
-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/12
My understanding is that S14 London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 was repealed by https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2053/contents/made
-
Sorry HCA, the council are correct about the 2003 Act, see Section 14 but they blow themselves up with the rubbish about the bay as 14(2)(a) covers that.
-
..and is a contravention regardless on any bay markings..! Priceless.
..and is enforceable under the LLA and TfL Act 2003.! .....Clueless.
Just register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur.
You rely on your representations and the authority's Notice of Rejection.
If they resist your appeal, go for a costs award in your favour - it's a token amount but it's the principle!
-
Update, iv received notice of rejection
(https://i.postimg.cc/V618R4FK/IMG-2782.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/qtmSBsSK)
-
I now have the traffic order, The Newham (Stratford South East) (Parking Places) (No 1) Order 2010 which runs to 57 pages so I will simply give you the page which includes the bay, item 146 which is one bay 20m long which would hold 4 average cars.
The recent painting had therefore not been done by the council as I suggested to the council that the bay might recently have been altered.
(https://i.ibb.co/xtPcHPX6/tmo-extract.png) (https://ibb.co/RkZMyZYc)
-
On 14 Jan. the authority issued a PCN to my vehicle under code 12. This means that as at this date the authority considered that the location was within a designated parking place.
The location was given as Holbrook Road, opp hse 4.
On 21 Feb. the authority issued another PCN citing contravention code 26(parking adjacent to a dropped footway etc.).
The location was given as: Holbrook Road. Opp hse 4
I challenged this PCN and on *** the authority responded by letter rejecting my representations. This letter helpfully referred me to the governing legislation in this case which is the Traffic Management Act 2004. Further research shows that the relevant provision is s86. They also referred me erroneously to the London Local Authorities Act 2000 however this is nonsense as no part of this legislation is relevant. I think they meant s14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003( 14Parking at dropped footways) but even this is incorrect because that provision was repealed by Schedule 12 of the later TMA. Your grasp of applicable legislation is woeful.
Returning to the relevant provision under the TMA(86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.), I have extracted its essential elements below:
a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
......
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This is subject to the following exceptions.
2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.
So, on 14 Jan. the location had to be a designated parking place in order for that PCN to be valid.
But on 21 Feb. it couldn't have been so designated otherwise the first exception to the alleged contravention would have applied.
At this point, I would refer the authority to another piece of legislation with which the council should be familiar, namely The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR), regulation 18 of which makes provision for traffic signs as follows:
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force..
But as can be seen in the CEO's photos and mine which are enclosed there are not any traffic signs within the parking place. And they must be placed 'in or within' the parking place because this is where the council's Traffic Management Orders require.
So:
If the parking place is designated, which was the authority's position on 14 Jan, then it was improperly marked by virtue of there not being any traffic signs conveying the restriction and therefore unenforceable, or
If the parking place was not designated, which is the only basis on which the PCN issued on 21 Feb. could be valid(otherwise the first exception to the dropped footway prohibition would apply) then the first PCN is again invalid because the parking place did not exist in law As regards the 21 Feb PCN, the fact that markings(which are classified as 'traffic signs' as the authority should know - s64 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers) are present means that a motorist is entitled to consider that length of street to be a designated parking place, whether there's a TMO provision or not, and therefore the first exception applies and that PCN must be cancelled.
Or perhaps the parking place was designated and then de-designated in part with the road markings removed and amended. If this is the case then it is the authority's burden to prove this by reference to an amending TMO which it should be simple for them to provide. Even then, as my car was parked with the markings in situ I was entitled to rely upon the first exception before the council's contractors appeared as can be seen in the photos.
Some thoughts..
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/newham-parking-ticket/msg60799/#msg60799
-
There’s no signs, Iv got an ongoing dispute over the same bay that mrmustard has kindly offered to help me with and that 1 is Contravention code: 12, I don’t have a permit because we didn’t need it for those bays, until CEO decided we did
Post a link to this thread pl, it'll resolve the current issue IMO.
-
On 6 March I asked Traffic Orders at Newham to send me the traffic order for the entire length of bay and queried whether it has recently been changed to two bays with a gap.
The answer to that will help.
An amazing co-incidence that the spray paint on the gates and the bay were painted on the same day, wink. Also, the transverse line should not be solid from the edge of the bay to the kerb.
-
There’s no signs, Iv got an ongoing dispute over the same bay that mrmustard has kindly offered to help me with and that 1 is Contravention code: 12, I don’t have a permit because we didn’t need it for those bays, until CEO decided we did
-
Are there any parking signs - upright residents bay parking signs - by the two bays. Look out if you are using these bays - do you have a permit?
It looks rather amateurish and that the resident has got over-involved.
I can't see you losing this given the picture of lines being painted out around your car. Also the pics from the other PCN are also clear it was a continuous parking bay.
-
Not sure if I’m doing this right,
https://postimg.cc/gallery/YQ6BD0B
-
Take picture of the whole bay length - now probably two bays - and any parking signs.
We don't have access to Newham's traffweb. I can't see an order for removing part of the bay in the Gazette, only one for a space outside no 4 on the other side of the road.
The bay parking sign disappeared at some point and wasn't there in 2022.
-
Pictures of the whole street or just that section?
-
After the car was parked.
Pl get away from this for the moment...
OP, you need to revisit.
As suggested by others, what might have happened is that having realised that their parking place obstructed the vehicle crossover they've attempted to remove the offending length.
But this cannot be done just by removing markings, the length must be removed by law i.e. the Traffic Management Order amended. If not, then what you have is a designated parking place with improper road markings!
Also, as such a change would create two separate parking places both would need to have their own traffic signs.
Pl return and get pics of the traffic signs in this length of street - photos which show context, not just close-up.
Also, we have members who can see whether the current traffweb for Newham shows this to be a single parking place or not.
-
Also you can see a blanket on the drivers side of the bonnet they placed to stop paint splashing
-
This is the man painting the lines from white to black, also waiting near the van is the CEO
https://postimg.cc/30gzPGCR
-
OK, so here is the latest GSV view dated April 2022 : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rqKBtof6uM2mkGDo9
As one can see it is a single bay not subdivided. So anybody then could park in front of those gates because they would be in a marked parking bay.
However, if one looks at your first photo, (IMG 2626), one can see a clearly marked bay for a single vehicle, and the markings adjacent to the gates are painted out by black paint, but that has partly worn away. Then looking at IMG 2629, the new bay markings are also clearly shown, and again the markings adjacent to the gates are painted out but partly worn away.
This is clearly the work of the council, and a rather botched job has been done, in that the white markings have merely been painted over, rather than burnt off. Over time, the black paint has worn off, thus exposing the markings once again.
So you could take them to London Tribunals on the basis that you parked in a marked bay. The council must then prove that the bay was re-arranged to allow the dropped kerb to remain free.
-
Newham said in the reply I am unable to verify if the council painted the walls or not, however, the markings next to your vehicle looks like it has been blacked out and therefore you cannot park
there. In conclusion,
Also that has been a bay for about 6yrs
-
https://g.co/kgs/6uXvBHH
-
Please post a GSV link, rather than screen captures. You parked by a dropped kerb giving access. However, if the bay is still a bay, this trumps the dropped kerb. But the bay markings seem to have been painted over, so you need clarification on the status of this bay. If Merton consider it is still a bay, then the PCN is void, simple.
-
I did challenge it and reply is here
-
Hey everyone,
I’m back with another PCN on the same bay, but this time with a different Contravention code: 12 and now 27. The writing on the gates and the black lines painted over the white lines were all done while the car was parked. If you check the GSV, you’ll see bays without any warning signs on the gates. Also, if this wasn’t a bay, why did I get a code 12 before? Newham doesn’t even know who painted the lines black.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/mD4zt1m