Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Londoner on October 27, 2023, 11:36:53 am
-
That's why I've paid the discount and moved on...
-
This is very marginal, I reckon around 50 / 50 if you went to the tribunal.
-
If the discount is still being shown on the council website then yeah seems fair in this case.
However as you have left it late/past the 14 day window it may not be showing in which case there is nothing to lost by taking it to Tribunal
-
26/02/2024 = Date of issue and presumed date of posting of the NoR.
28/02/2024 = Deemed date of service and day 1 of the 14 & 28 day relevant periods.
12/03/2024 = Day 14 of 14 = last day to pay at discount.
26/03/2024 = Day 28 of 28 period.
So you've left the discount option lapse, although you might find that the computer system doesn't update until this evening.
Does that mean you intend to appeal to the Adjudicator? In which case it's all or nothing. Nothing if you win and £130 if you lose.
I am inclined to just paying the discount and having this headache over and done with. What are my chances at tribunal?
-
26/02/2024 = Date of issue and presumed date of posting of the NoR.
28/02/2024 = Deemed date of service and day 1 of the 14 & 28 day relevant periods.
12/03/2024 = Day 14 of 14 = last day to pay at discount.
26/03/2024 = Day 28 of 28 period.
So you've left the discount option lapse, although you might find that the computer system doesn't update until this evening.
Does that mean you intend to appeal to the Adjudicator? In which case it's all or nothing. Nothing if you win and £130 if you lose.
-
UPDATE
See below, the council's Notice of rejection.
(https://i.ibb.co/b6zHZ57/PXL-20240311-172424581.jpg) (https://ibb.co/L0nQWdv)
(https://i.ibb.co/xLt8Hdq/PXL-20240311-172450195.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4tngd3R)
(https://i.ibb.co/chTXm9k/PXL-20240311-172518336.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jk4ZpYb)
-
I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.
You haven't submitted representations late, the deadline was 8 February.
Okay, thanks for that.
-
I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.
You haven't submitted representations late, the deadline was 8 February.
-
I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.
Does the 28 day counter start on the stated date the NtO is posted?
If so, I submitted my reps on day 29.
Is this going to be an issue?
The 28 day pariod for PCNs issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (your PCN) is from date of service. This is assumed as 2 working days after the date of the PCN.
-
I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.
Does the 28 day counter start on the stated date the NtO is posted?
If so, I submitted my reps on day 29.
Is this going to be an issue?
-
Okay. Thanks guys, I'll go with the same appeal as before.
-
I'm not sure you'd need to change much, if anything, from the previous draft.
-
My 28 day argument no longer works.
I would, if I were you, make representations on the grounds that there was no contravention because signage is inadequate. You don't have to spell it out any more than that.
-
UPDATE: I've attached pics of NtO below.
I know I only have a few days left to make representations so hoping someone can still help me.
I've re-read all the above replies and wondering what would be the best grounds for making reps. on?
(https://i.ibb.co/SnrnPcB/PXL-20240204-225400963-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VSmStxT)
(https://i.ibb.co/bWy6KtZ/PXL-20240204-225615103.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TvnwgyS)
(https://i.ibb.co/phBtDF4/PXL-20240204-225512375.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vX675nL)
-
As a backup to the inadequate signage point, which I think is sufficient on its own, the 28 days are wrongly expressed on the PCN which has been a winner at the tribunal for me.
-
OP, you're not at Tribunal yet, there's the important formal NTO stage yet to be negotiated.
IMO, it's premature to concern yourself with adjudication, the question is whether you could succeed at the NTO stage and, if not, would the authority re-offer the discount again.
As regards the decision referred to, IMO there is nothing in this which would lead to the conclusion that the adjudicator considered the signage to be inadequate. Rather the appellant 'disputes the signage is clear', which is capable of many interpretations. And as neither the appellant nor the council had put hard evidence in front of the adj the case was adjourned and determined because the council didn't respond. We could speculate what might have happened had they done so, but I don't see that this would be useful.
OP, let's try and nail one point: are you able to arrange for the location of all signs to be identified and plotted on a simple diagram? If not, then should you* decide to continue, you must put this to the authority in formal reps. Not just as a statement e.g. your signs are inadequate etc, but by posing a question which requires them to respond by identifying where these are and, if only at the gateway, why the council chose to place the barest minimum permissible** in theory, but insufficient in practice given the size of the area and situation in which the gateway signs have been placed.
* - are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
**- see s.13.10 of the Traffic Signs Manual which, although not law, is recommended practice and the authority may, and should, be challenged on this where there is a significant departure from its recommendations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
-
Well done on finding this case. The key sentence for me is: -
"One small sign, wherever it has been placed, is not sufficient to mark a restriction that applies in this entire area."
Obviously you would quote this case in your appeal if you take them to London Tribunals.
-
Not binding on another Adjudicator however this appeal on the London Tribunals site supports your case. It seems to be the only recent case concerning the area where you parked. It's about the lack of signage in the area where you parked.
The sign shown in your rejection letter, the only sign that you passed, is presumably situated on the start of Hanover Avenue at it's junction with the Britannia Village roundabout? Are you able to check? If so please take your own pictures of the sign(s). GSV predates the signs so doesn't help.
Case Details
Case reference 2220181135
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM SH65 BAD
PCN Details
PCN PN33370025
Contravention date 06 Feb 2022
Contravention time 09:33:00
Contravention location Hanover Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date
Decision Date 19 May 2022
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons The vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice and subsequently removed. The Appellant complains about the lack of adequate signage of the restrictions.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs show the close-up of one sign that restricts parking to permit holders “beyond this point”. There are no notes telling me where this sign is located. The Notice of Rejection states “There are signs at the beginning of the road where you parked…” The Case Summary says, “there are clear signs at the entrance of Hanover Avenue as photographed by the Civil Enforcement Officer".
Since the Appellant disputes the signage is clear, I adjourned the case and asked the council to provide a site plan showing: 1. Which areas are restricted for residents. 2. Where all resident bay signs are posted. 3. The location of the sign photographed by the CEO. 4. Where this vehicle was parked.
There has been no response.
I do not find on the evidence before me that the restriction is adequately signed. One small sign, wherever it has been placed, is not sufficient to mark a restriction that applies in this entire area.
Authority Response
-
This is the reply to my informal reps. I understand that they have to re-offer the discount regardless, at this stage.
I had parked there as I was visiting an exhibition at the nearby Excel. Perhaps there were no parking restrictions the last time I'd parked here as it has been a number of years since I'd visited the excel by car.
While £65 is a tough one to swallow, £130 is obviously even harder. What are the odds of winning this at tribunal?
At the moment, not good because we see a clear sign at the entrance to the zone and have no knowledge of what there might be once inside, (repeater signs). GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date on this, so to prove their absence you'd have to do some leg work, and even then might not win at London Tribunals. However, a case in Wales recently, (at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) won on this aspect. The point that won was the turn into the zone was from a busy road, so the attention of the drive was elsewhere, for safety reasons. This location also had no repeaters. So it really hinges on that.
So if you want to take the matter further you need more back-up to your case, I'm afraid.
-
This is the reply to my informal reps. I understand that they have to re-offer the discount regardless, at this stage.
I had parked there as I was visiting an exhibition at the nearby Excel. Perhaps there were no parking restrictions the last time I'd parked here as it has been a number of years since I'd visited the excel by car.
While £65 is a tough one to swallow, £130 is obviously even harder. What are the odds of winning this at tribunal?
-
YOu have quite a reasonable case if the signs at the entry to the zone are all that there is. However, they have cunningly re-offered the discount, so it is your decision whether to get closure by paying the discount, or to risk the extra £65 at London Tribunals, (no discount option there). It is always the case when parking in London that if something looks too good to be true, then it IS too good to be true. Did you park so you could use the DLR to get to town ? It looks almost certain that is the reason why this RPZ has been established.
-
UPDATE:
See Newham's reply below.
The one thing that stood out for me is "Motorists are expected to check what restrictions are in force BEFORE LEAVING THEIR VEHICLES UNATTENDED." - That is precisely what I did, and there were no signs indicating restrictions within sight.
As always, I'd like to hear your opinions on whether I have a strong enough defence to continue, or if I should pay the discounted amount now.
(https://i.ibb.co/y6qTKXZ/Screenshot-20231215-103426-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JvHL8KG)
(https://i.ibb.co/gPCYCqy/Screenshot-20231215-103439-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dLyZyCB)
(https://i.ibb.co/H7hP8Dp/Screenshot-20231215-103447-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cJY8ncX)
-
For later, The Newham (Royal Docks West) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Kr50CEjJEhyIoTVTXfWVt230njGwKQmE).
-
That looks like a reasonable challenge. I'd fully expect the council to reject it, and you'll likely have to take this to the tribunal in due course.
-
Need to submit by tomorrow to maintain 50% discount. Would you guys be able to share your wisdom re. above reps or if it is good to go?
Thank you!
-
See below my initial draft for appeal to council. I will be upfront in saying I drafted part of this appeal with help from ChatGPT. I welcome and look forward to any feedback.
To whom this may concern,
I am writing to appeal a Penalty Charge Notice that was issued to me on [Date] for parking without a valid resident parking permit in [Location].
Upon receiving the PCN, I carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the notice. I acknowledge that there is a sign at the entrance of the access road displaying parking restrictions. However, I would like to bring to your attention that this is the only sign in the area and it is located approximately 120 meters away from the place where I was parked. Also there were no repeater signs within view of my parking space, which could have provided clear and unambiguous notice of the parking restrictions in place. I have also parked here in the past without issue, further reinforcing my belief that there were no parking restrictions in place in the location where I parked.
I believe that it is imperative for residents and visitors alike to be provided with adequate and conspicuous signage to ensure compliance with parking regulations. In this instance, the absence of repeater signs in close proximity to my parking space created an unintentional oversight on my part.
I kindly request that you reconsider the issuance of this Penalty Charge Notice, taking into consideration the absence of clear and visible signage in the vicinity of my parking space. I genuinely value and respect the importance of adhering to parking regulations and assure you that I will exercise increased vigilance in the future.
Enclosed with this appeal letter, please find evidence supporting my claim showing the distance between signage and parking location.
I would be grateful if you could review my case at your earliest convenience. I am confident that, with your understanding of the situation, a fair resolution can be reached.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Londoner
(https://i.ibb.co/BwsF860/screencapture-calcmaps-map-distance-2023-11-02-15-56-19.png) (https://ibb.co/PtC0BWq)
-
These are the permit parking area cases I have to hand:
Stephanie Martin v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (KI00006-1905, 21 June 2019) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1CA19mTqe16e61jpg9iEhG7QXBxfiBpSW)
Shetal Patel v London Borough of Harrow (2220650316, 27 October 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1xZjjLoGbTaLsTaDBgOacE5uTukj4_c3x)
Sabera Lee v London Borough of Harrow (2220689923, 04 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1gWhzGqcAd9WIqwDkOROD2cegF_0lGFYE)
Ameeta Kumar v London Borough of Harrow (2220814027, 17 December 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1z6ReY9ibyKmyVIj1h8PTWK3Jd8engSoV)
John Fellows v London Borough of Harrow (2230367923, 18 September 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14CwDmqKYLw-b-fvuPhqxTuxdsnJ3auo9)
In essence, the argument to be made is that a single sign at the entrance to the zone is inadequate, and the council should have provided repeaters. Try drafting a representation based on those decisions and post it on here and we'll tidy it up for you.
Thanks. Will get to work.
-
These are the permit parking area cases I have to hand:
Stephanie Martin v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (KI00006-1905, 21 June 2019) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1CA19mTqe16e61jpg9iEhG7QXBxfiBpSW)
Shetal Patel v London Borough of Harrow (2220650316, 27 October 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1xZjjLoGbTaLsTaDBgOacE5uTukj4_c3x)
Sabera Lee v London Borough of Harrow (2220689923, 04 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1gWhzGqcAd9WIqwDkOROD2cegF_0lGFYE)
Ameeta Kumar v London Borough of Harrow (2220814027, 17 December 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1z6ReY9ibyKmyVIj1h8PTWK3Jd8engSoV)
John Fellows v London Borough of Harrow (2230367923, 18 September 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14CwDmqKYLw-b-fvuPhqxTuxdsnJ3auo9)
In essence, the argument to be made is that a single sign at the entrance to the zone is inadequate, and the council should have provided repeaters. Try drafting a representation based on those decisions and post it on here and we'll tidy it up for you.
-
I've requested the traffic order, in the meantime are you in a position to go back and check the signage? It would be helpful to know if there are any repeater signs within the zone. We have won cases in the past where a zone has a number of streets and no repeaters, though I have to say this one isn't very big.
I am confident there were no repeater signs as I checked upon leaving. The signs that are in the council photos I must have missed as they were facing the other way when I drove past them (although it is clear to see from GSV the location they are in).
It would be half hour drive in each direction for me to return to that location, which I'd rather avoid doing.
-
These are the council photos:
(https://i.imgur.com/A0WO2oY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UkM4zTP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UuBYpD5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uNh06CJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/f1YWNsl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ldY0AEH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1Fu7qJI.jpg)
I've requested the traffic order, in the meantime are you in a position to go back and check the signage? It would be helpful to know if there are any repeater signs within the zone. We have won cases in the past where a zone has a number of streets and no repeaters, though I have to say this one isn't very big.
-
Not a CPZ, an RPZ...Restricted Parking Zone ... really are the invention of the devil.
Not quite, it's a permit parking area or PPA, which is not the same as an RPZ.
@Londoner please give us the PCN number and number plate.
PN 3 7 0 2 2 7 3 4
Bravo.Kilo.One.Seven.Peter.Hotel.Universe
-
Not a CPZ, an RPZ...Restricted Parking Zone ... really are the invention of the devil.
Not quite, it's a permit parking area or PPA, which is not the same as an RPZ.
@Londoner please give us the PCN number and number plate.
-
These signs occur in all of the Newham Resident Parking Zones. They use them when there is only one entrance/exit into a street or set of streets. EG a cul-de-sac. The signs will be placed at the entrance and it's not possible to access such streets without passing the signs. There won't be any repeater signs. The restricted hours are on the signs and are the same as the parent zone, in this case Royal Docks West (RDW).
-
Google Street View latest is 2015, which is, I suspect, too old to show the signs. So if you want to fight this one, you'll need to go and take your own photos. Much depends on where the entry sign is located, but from the look of the location, I suspect the whole of this development, called Britannia Village, is an RPZ, or has some pretty tight parking restrictions. I say this because the DLR station West Silvertown is quite close.
I did take my own photos of where I parked, showing there were no road signs within view of the car, if that helps?
-
Google Street View latest is 2015, which is, I suspect, too old to show the signs. So if you want to fight this one, you'll need to go and take your own photos. Much depends on where the entry sign is located, but from the look of the location, I suspect the whole of this development, called Britannia Village, is an RPZ, or has some pretty tight parking restrictions. I say this because the DLR station West Silvertown is quite close.
-
Not a CPZ, an RPZ...Restricted Parking Zone ... really are the invention of the devil.
They specifically must have entry signs like the one the CEo pics show and cannot have any of the normal road markings such as yellow lines.
I would normally expect repeater signs in larger zones but not mandatory.
It comes down to whether or not an adjudicator can be persuaded that the sign (there seems only one) complies with the regs that require signs to adequately convey the restriction... I'm 50/50 on that one
See what others have to say, they may know summat I don't for this area
-
Hi all,
I received this PCN on Sunday for parking in a CPZ without a valid resident's permit.
I live in the borough of Barnet where there are CPZs galore. Never have I come across restricted road parking without some sort of road markings (i.e painted bays) or signage within view of the parking space.
Considering the above, and the fact that I have parked here in the past without issue, I had no idea I was parking in a restricted area.
Having searched around on GSV I found that the council's image showing CPZ signage is around the corner. Is that really sufficient?
Have I got an argument to make that there was no indication whatsoever of parking restrictions within view of where I parked?
Thanks in advance for your help!
GSV of "assumed" CPZ signage: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aAvBUfHw73dtHDJR9
GSV of parking location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wg3Sb6ydPhHXzEer8
(https://i.ibb.co/MVf7ghR/PXL-20231024-160050921-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Ltr10PC)
(https://i.ibb.co/rk2qbYp/PXL-20231024-160220691.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9nHBw64)
(https://i.ibb.co/f97s97X/Media.jpg) (https://ibb.co/f97s97X) (https://i.ibb.co/qdMCtL1/Media-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qdMCtL1) (https://i.ibb.co/bB1hzQb/Media-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bB1hzQb) (https://i.ibb.co/HB1MtRR/Media-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HB1MtRR) (https://i.ibb.co/wBnWhwH/Media-6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wBnWhwH) (https://i.ibb.co/qDjHvS4/Media-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qDjHvS4) (https://i.ibb.co/phBrxGG/Media-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/phBrxGG)