Free Traffic Legal Advice

Will keep you updated if/when I hear back.

If you don't hear back, chase them.

I've said it all in my draft letter. The scans are here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CqXV5K_xs04GyQwRYR_mQkIP21pyKgx2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1deIwIs35diJkY4DdLWyw3G1ONqdZLmCu

GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5405375,-0.142168,3a,90y,68.9h,78.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5WjcFh-JYaeuzimHtaKigw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.509491520105101%26panoid%3D5WjcFh-JYaeuzimHtaKigw%26yaw%3D68.89729515006772!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Draft letter:

I received a PCN because Camden Council had recently changed the parking hours for the bay I was parked in.

I have been parking in this same bay on average at least once a week for more than 20 years, and had no reason to believe that my car was parked in a bay that required payment at that time. There were no warning signs at any point that bring it to the motorist’s attention that the parking hours have changed. Further, the parking signage is at the far end of the bay, more than 20 metres from my car.

Having checked on Camden Council’s website, I see that I can download a PDF map from the
following URL: https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/4207063/CPZ-Web+(1).pdf

This map shows that the parking hours of the CPZ CA-F(n) are between 08:30 and 18:30. This is incorrect, as according to the CPZ signage the parking hours have been extended to 23:00.

Further, I can see that on the page that covers Residents, Paid for parking, Pay by Phone, Shared-Use bays traffic orders for zone CA-F: https://www.camden.gov.uk/cpz-orders#avws
the Traffic Management Order displays the times for this bay (10560) as “MONDAY - FRIDAY: 8.30AM - 6.30PM, SATURDAY, SUNDAY: 9.30AM - 5.30PM”.

The council have therefore provided contradictory messaging on their website to the signage and this is a procedural impropriety. I therefore ask you to cancel this PCN.
===============
Notes / questions:

My observation about the CPZ is possibly off-topic, but the restricted hours of the CPZs always seem to be aligned with the hours of the parking bays and motorists should be able to rely on this as a guide.

Another point I could raise is that repeater signs should be every 30 metres, and the spirit of that law is that no car will be further than 15m from a sign. My car is 20m from that sign and according to Greenslade in Antonio Prendi v London Borough of Camden (2100346960, 30 September 2010), "motorists cannot be expected to traipse the streets looking for signs".

I expect Camden will probably reject, and it will go to London Tribunals.

Any advice before sending?

You don't "appeal" a CCJ, you apply to have it set aside. Unfortunately, it is not the claimants fault that the claim wasn't defended properly.

There are two options to consider when applying for a set aside. If the claim was not served correctly of deficiently, i.e. to the correct address, then a set aside under CPR 13.2 is mandatory. In this case, the claimant hasn't done anything wrong and the clam was served to the correct address.

However, there is CPR 13.3 which is a discretionary set aside. There is no guarantee that it will be successful but one of the reasons that can be applied for is the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Ignorance of what should have been done is no excuse but if it can be shown that there is a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, then there is a fair chance that the court will allow the set aside. At the end of the day, it is the Overriding Objective (justice is seen to be done) that is important.

If an application is made, there are two possible routes. One is an application with consent (of the other party) and one without consent. An application where both parties agree costs £119 and does not require a hearing. If the other part does not consent, then an application without consent costs £303 as it requires a hearing.

I doubt the climate will agree to an application with consent as they did nothing wrong. Even if they did consent, they'd expect you to pay for the application and probably also their costs and at least the initial principal of the PCN.

If you apply without consent, aside from the £303 for the application, there is no guarantee that the court will grant the set aside but if a good argument is put forward, they generally do. It is likely that the court would order the defendant to re-submit their defence and for the case to be heard at a later date. The court could order that costs are reserved until after the outcome of the hearing or simply expect the defendant to bear the cost of the £303 application fee.

If costs are reserved, it is essential that they are protected as it is almost certain that they would discontinue before any hearing and then the matter of recovering costs is down the drain.

Then again, the court could take one look at the claim and strike it out there and then at the set aside hearing.

Not doing anything is an extremely bad option. If it is less than 28 days since the CCJ was issued, the total amount can be paid and that is the end of it. There will be no CCJ on your credit record for the next 6 years. It is completely expunged.

If more than 28 days have passed and you pay it, then it remains on your credit record but marked as "satisfied". That is about 1% less financially painful than having a unsatisfied CCJ.

So, choices, choices, choices.

Apply for a set aside or pay the CCJ or do nothing?

Hi All,

We have just received a PCN for exactly the same contravention described in this thread (52 Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles) i.e. turning into New Park Road (D), recorded on August 26th.

@cp8759, I'm tagging you as you made the last posts to the other thread in May this year. From those, it looks like the once solid defence of Lambeth not having GLA consent is no longer valid, at least until March 2025.

If I have understood that correctly, is there any other chance of appealing this PCN or should I cough up while it's still in the discounted period?

Thanks!
Steve

Welcome. You do not need a blue badge to show that you have a protected characteristic covered under the Equality Act (EA).

When you say "they" replied, do you mean Horizon or BW Legal?

You say you found another appeal template on the internet and you sent this:

I’ve found online another template and I added something else:

As you are aware, one of the passengers in the vehicle at the time was a disabled child with severe anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

How were "they" aware that one of the passengers in the vehicle was a disabled child?

In this situation, you should approach Horizon by emphasising the following points:

1. The Blue Badge Scheme is Not a Requirement for Reasonable Adjustments:

Explain that the Blue Badge Scheme is primarily for on-street parking concessions and is not the sole determinant of whether a person is considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010. The Act provides broader protections, covering individuals with "protected characteristics," including disabilities that substantially affect day-to-day activities.

Horizon should not insist on the production of a Blue Badge, as the lack of one does not negate the child’s entitlement to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.

2. Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act 2010:

State that you have notified them of a passenger’s protected characteristic under the Equality Act, which obligates service providers (including parking operators) to make reasonable adjustments. The ability to walk does not disqualify the child from being considered disabled if there are other substantial impacts on their daily life.

3. Reasonable Adjustment Requirement:

Point out that Horizon has a duty to consider the circumstances and make reasonable adjustments, such as cancelling the PCN. Request a review of the case based on the child’s specific needs and the notification of a protected characteristic rather than demanding a Blue Badge as a precondition.

4. Use of Equality Act as a Legal Framework:

Remind them of their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including their duty to anticipate the needs of disabled people and to provide reasonable adjustments without requiring the presentation of a Blue Badge.

5. Document Evidence of the Disability (if available):

While not obligated to provide a Blue Badge, you could consider offering other evidence of the child’s disability (e.g., a letter from a healthcare professional) to strengthen your case.
Emphasise your expectation for Horizon to act in compliance with their legal obligations, rather than their internal policies that are irrelevant in this context.