Show Posts - alpha5

Common sense has prevailed - the reps have been accepted and PCN cancelled  Thank you to all who have contributed and assisted - we very much appreciate your help.

Thank you both - your help and advice is much appreciated.Assuming there is nothing amiss with the NTO, and no reason to delay submitting the appeal, I shall send it off.

Thanks - added here: https://imgur.com/a/m1vJ4npLooking at the council's photo, there is still icy slush present to the rear left of the car, and a large pool of water to the right where the snow and ice has melted and run down the car park. The more I look at their evidence, the more absurd I find their position on this.

NTO received today. Any advice re: how best to approach the appeal before I start drafting?

Yes, I'm the RK and V5C is all up to date. I do feel that the council has acted in bad faith in issuing a ticket in this manner.I couldn't see any other examples of councils doing similar when I searched the forum for snow. Is this something you've come across before?

My submission was: Snow had fallen overnight on the previous night (5-6 January) and, at the time of parking the vehicle (around midday and at least one hour before the PCN was issued), bay markings where the vehicle was parked were not visible to the driver due to slushy snow and ice on the car park surface covering the bay markings. Milder temperatures led to the snow melting quickly in the afternoon, though some remnants are still visible in the photos taken by the CEO. It is unfair and disproportionate to penalise the driver in this case. This was not a deliberate disregard for other car park users - the weather conditions on that day were outside of the driver’s control.You will also note from the CEO’s photos that construction work had been taking place in that area of the car park to install bollards. These are located within the existing bays but some distance away from the rear kerb (see attachment Photo 1, which was taken later that day). The driver parked close to the side of one set of bollards, with more bollards installed two bays away. In the absence of visible markings denoting the bays or the purpose of the newly installed bollards, the driver parked as responsibly as possible within the two sets of bollards.The Telford & Wrekin Parking Enforcement Operational Guidance states at section 1.1 that the council will enforce regulations fairly. It cannot be fair to penalise the driver when the markings were visible at the time of parking and no attempt had been made by the Council to ensure they were visible. The Guidance also states at Appendix D that representations can be accepted where snow has covered the markings. Given the circumstances of this specific occasion, it would be proportionate and appropriate to cancel the PCN. Your records will show that no PCNs have previously been issued to this address. This is because all drivers in this household park responsibly, and will continue to do so.I've added the rejection letter here: https://imgur.com/a/m1vJ4npI have just realised the gaffe I made in the last paragraph "it cannot be fair to penalise the driver when the markings were visible at the time of parking" and I am kicking myself now.

Thanks, I submitted a shortened version last night and received a template letter of rejection this evening. Will decide now whether to just pay up and be done with it, or take on the hassle and keep fighting it.

I've drafted th einformal challenge. Any suggestions or recommendations before I submit this tomorrow?This informal challenge is made on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur. However, it is expected that the council will give full consideration to all points raised regardless of Statutory Grounds, as directed by the Local Government Ombudsman. The Telford and Wrekin Parking Enforcement Operation Guidance states that representations can be accepted where markings are missing or unclear. This is the exact situation that occurred on the day.The alleged contravention:Snow had fallen overnight 5-6 January and, at the time of parking the vehicle, bay markings were not visible to the driver due to slushy snow and ice on the car park surface covering the bay markings. Although this has mostly melted at the time the PCN was issued, the remnants of this are evidenced in photos taken of the vehicle by the CEO.Despite the Council failing in its responsibility to ensure the adequacy of the car park markings in adverse weather, it proceeded to carry out enforcement at a time when the snow and ice had melted, unfairly penalising the driver who had parked earlier in the day when the markings were not visible. This is contrary to the council’s own guidance which states at section 1.2:“Telford & Wrekin Council will: • enforce regulations fairly, lawfully and without discrimination • deliver the service in a manner that is proportionate to the problems caused by the parking”Had the council ensured that markings were visible at the time the vehicle was parked, the driver would have been able to park in a different manner. Therefore it is neither fair nor proportionate for the Council to have issued a PCN once snow and ice had melted, when clearly the ability of the driver to park within marked bays when they arrived at the car park was severely hampered.You will note from the CEO’s photos that the driver parked close to the bollards (which were causing an obstruction) so that, in the absence of visible bay markings, there were parked as responsibly as possible. In any event, as is also evidenced in the photos, there were several empty spaces and no other driver was affected by the manner in which the vehicle was parked which. While by itself this is not a mitigating factor, combined with the absence of visible markings at the time of parking, this again reinforces the disproportionality of issuing the PCN in this specific circumstance.Section 1.2 also states:“In determining the above enforcement activities, due account has been taken of: … • The adequacy, accuracy and quality of signing and lining”In issuing the PCN neither the CEO or the Council has taken account of the adequacy of lining at the time the vehicle was parked, otherwise the PCN would not have been issued. The inadequacy of the markings due to snow and ice should have been obvious given the overnight snowfall and remaining slush and ice on the ground at the time the PCN was issued.Grounds for the Council to cancel the PCNAppendix D of the guidance provides for mitigation where a motorist has parked with one or more wheel outside of a marked bay in a car park “in most exceptional of circumstance that were outside of the motorists control supported by incontrovertible evidence”The fact that snow had fallen overnight is both incontrovertible and was outside of the driver’s control. If the council believes that the markings around the bay were visible at the time the vehicle was parked, it should itself provide incontrovertible evidence. It will be unable to do this as the markings were not visible.Appendix D provides for a further reason of mitigation:“Where the motorist claims that snow, foliage, fallen leaves or flooding covered the signs or markings•   If it can be established that such conditions prevailed and it is likely that signs and markings were obscured as claimed and there was no alternative indication of the restriction”The council should be aware of the weather conditions on the day but, for the avoidance of doubt, here is a local news report: https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2025/01/06/snow-closes-school-while-others-delay-start-due-to-bad-weather/The above mitigations, by themselves, afford the council opportunities to cancel the PCN. This would be supported by the Government Statutory Guidance on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions which states:“An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.“Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest.”It is neither proportionate nor in the public interest for the Council to proceed with the PCN in order to penalise a driver when the sole cause was adverse weather conditions beyond their control. You will note from my address that no parking infringements have ever been recorded against anyone living here since we moved in 2012 – this is because as borough residents we appreciate the role of the council in managing car parking and we always park responsibly and considerately for the sake of others, and will continue to do so in the future.In light of the above points, it therefore possible, proportionate and appropriate for the Council to cancel the PCN.

I received the photos from the council today and have added them here (they are the time-stamped images at the end): https://imgur.com/a/m1vJ4npShould I focus the appeal purely on the fact the lines weren't visible at the time the car was parked due to the snow, the remnants of which can be seen in the tyre tracks on the council's photos, or is it worth challenging the poor signage too given it's facing outside of the carpark on a pedestrian route?I have until this Sunday to submit the appeal.

Thanks. I've sent an email requesting the photos.

Hello and, firstly, thank you in anticipation of your help.My car was ticketed today. I was not present otherwise I’d have taken photos but, alas, we are where we are. I’ve since been and taken some photos myself.In summary, overnight snow meant that upon arrival at the council-owned car park the bay markings were not visible. The car was parked close to a couple of bollards in order to be as considerate as possible to other potential drivers. However, on returning to the vehicle the snow had melted and it became apparent that the car was in fact straddling two parking bays and a PCN had been issued.This is the location on Street View:https://maps.app.goo.gl/bchrHuyz75aAtHbS8Construction work has been taking place (EV points by the look of it) and the second closest bay (next to the grey Saab 93) now has two bollards in it. My car was parked straddling the second and third bays. You’ll note on Street View there’s a small sign facing away from the bay. It reads “park in lined bays only” but is no longer present at the location, as evidenced in my photos. A further (larger) sign on the other side of the Zebra crossing is facing away from the car park and therefore not visible to drivers parking in this part of the car park. I have included a photo of that for reference too.Plastic construction fencing is currently strewn all around that area of the car park (I mention that in case the PCN is actually for parking in an area that was supposed to have been inaccessible due to the construction work).I have uploaded some photos inc the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/m1vJ4np Any advice that you can offer re: how to best to approach appealing this will be gratefully received.Thank you.