Free Traffic Legal Advice

FWIM, I don't see how it can be 'theft' because the person who has possession does not intend to permanently deprive the owner of their goods* but rather to release on payment of the stated sum. IMO, it's certainly a crime(bp listed several possibilities), but not theft.

I hope the OP has secured legal advice.

*- interestingly, the 'Torts' notice made no reference to a release fee, but to removal and scrapping(OP, this word is blurred, is it scrapping?) but the second notice does.

If a warrant of control was not involved, then I apologise.

My post wasn't intended to challenge the OP's actions, but instead to flesh out those parts which might assist.

Mr Ebrahim is a Certificated Bailiff according to the register.

The issue of PCNs and the signs and asking for a specimen was to see whether in fact the issues arise under 'relevant contract' or 'a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort..' provisions of PoFA. The prohibitive wording of the sign suggests it could be the latter.

My request to flesh out the underlying issue was to see even at this stage whether any application to the court could be bolstered by an assertion that the underlying claims are without foundation.

As per bp, I think you need legal advice.

bp's (and the District Judge's) advice is predicated on the facts as we know them, my worry is that these might not be all the relevant facts.

For example: : I have 29 PCNs from PPS private parking company - all at the same location,

...car parking charge consisting of 29 fines which have multiplied in costs (My plan was to wait for LOC to arrive for PCNs and argue)

So what's happened? An approved operator, PPS, decided to abandon(!) the Code of Practice and PoFA and out of frustration use a different tactic to achieve their ends, or what?

Why would PPS take such an overt risk when their landowner cannot indemnify them against their ATA's sanctions? Has this in fact got anything to do with PPS? Their name appears under 'Site Managed By' on the first notice after which they're not mentioned.

What was said when the car was removed and the police attended?

How come this is 'theft' if the Enforcement Agent was acting under a warrant?

You say 'As I use my vehicle on a daily basis and at this time of year, I really do need my vehicle back..' so you need to act urgently.

On the underlying issue, why were you parked where a sign clearly says you may not? There's no offer of a contract, you may not park or wait at any time 24/7. Perhaps you could post one of the parking charge notices and notices to keeper?

Absolutely, which is why the TMA excluded on-street obstruction because the exercise of subjective opinion requires training and is best left with the police. But they did introduce the '50 cm' contravention to help councils deal with this form of parking(double parking), particularly near sports grounds.

 

The Case Summary is presented to the adjudicator. In itself it does not form evidence but refers to evidence e.g. the signs, your reps, CCTV of your car passing the signs etc.

IMO, anything which is included should, if intended to be material, exist as evidence.

So, where is the DfT guidance on School Streets which the council implemented?

'The use of conditional expressions such as 'Term time only' has been accepted by the Department of Transport for these schemes.' So where is it?

IMO, in both cases if it's not in evidence then it doesn't exist.

I would write back to Parking and Traffic Enforcement.

Sir,
PCN *********; Case No. ********

Thank you for a copy of the evidence you have submitted to the adjudicator in respect of the above appeal. I thank you for providing this at such an early stage because it gives me time to consider this in detail and for the authority to provide what appear to be missing items of evidence.

My request refers to the extracts from the Traffic Management Order and to your Case Summary.

TMO
1. Please provide me with the relevant provision within the TMO or any principal order which applies as regards 'traffic signs';
2. Please provide the relevant provision within this order or any principal order which applies to the effect that the prohibition may be varied summarily by officers of the Enforcement Authority or by any other means.

Case Summary
I refer to page 3:

Para. 1: Please provide the document(s) e.g. guidance etc. which form the basis of the council's assertion that:
'the use of conditional expressions such as 'term time only' has been accepted by the Department for Transport for these schemes';

'the signage in question..follows DfT guidance on School Streets'.

Para. 2
I cannot find the referenced appeal cases on the ETA database, have you quoted the correct numbers? I should be permitted to examine these as the authority wish the adjudicator to have regard to their reasoning and conclusion that 'this shows that adjudicators have upheld enforcement under similar wording when the signage meets statutory requirements'. At present, I cannot see how this statement helps the authority because one of the key issues at large and to be determined is whether in fact the council's signage does in fact meet statutory requirements.

Yours,

I've just skimmed the Evidence Pack

Has this been posted?

It's not relevant at present, you received a NTO and have made representations against this in time.

They must consider.

@Incandescent, for better or worse, 'Parked causing an obstruction' is an approved contravention description which may be applied to a PCN as the grounds for demanding a penalty.