DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Car towed Newham, code 01 parked in a restricted street
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 17, 2026, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(11) Where an authority does not accept that there are any
compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 11(3)(b),
or that any of the grounds specified in regulation 11(4) apply,
its decision notice must—
(a)inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under
regulation 13,
(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs,
and
(c)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such
an appeal is required to be made.
As for regulation 13!
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564/part/4
Appeal. Procedural impropriety.
FFS, the duty falls to the council, not ETA and their internal
guidance note which in any event states the INCORRECT period for
making an appeal!
#Post#: 128189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Car towed Newham, code 01 parked in a restricted street
DIR By: roxyord@gmail.com
Date: August 19, 2026, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this. Do I’m shaking on grounds that they did not
follow procedure totally?
#Post#: 128207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Car towed Newham, code 01 parked in a restricted street
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 19, 2026, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't follow.
Register your appeal or lose what you've paid.
Some thoughts.
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety
Contravention did not occur
By the authority's own admission, parking place markings and DYL
co-exist at the location: 'I note your comments regarding the
white bay markings visible at the location'. The authority
suggests that a motorist should compare and contrast these and
the clarity of 'the marked permit bays further along the road..'
and conclude that while the parking bay markings at issue are
present they are 'faint' (or possibly fainter) and these should
therefore be disregarded by motorists because the DYL were
clearly visible. They were therefore, according to the
authority, 'prevailing'.
I refer the adjudicator to GSV snapshots of the location dated
2017, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2024. These show that between 2018
and 2020 a parking bay was installed at the location but
removed. I would draw the adjudicator's attention to the upright
traffic sign(which is still in situ), which corresponds with the
type recommended for use within a parking place, that is to say
it omits any directional arrows indicating the start of a
restriction. This sign is consistent with a bay existing where
my car was parked.
Since 2020 the markings have been left, apparently to weather
naturally, but this casual approach by the council places
motorists in jeopardy.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the signage is not adequate
and that a contravention did not occur.
I would also refer the adjudicator to the council's decision
notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of
28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
Whereas the first requirement of Appeals Regulation 11 is:
11(a): inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under
regulation 13,
As the adjudicator will know, as regards appealing to the
adjudicator Regulation 13 provides:
An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
2(a)the period of 28 days beginning with date of service of the
decision notice under regulation 12(4)(b) informing P of P’s
right to appeal under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The decision notice omits 13(2)(b) in its entirety. However, I
submit that as the regulation does not distinguish between the
importance of these complementary provisions, then neither may
the authority: the right of an owner to request that the
adjudicator accept a late submission, and the adjudicator's
corresponding power in this regard, is as fundamental as '28
days...'.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is
defective in this regard and that this is a procedural
impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to
this by reference to the tribunal form enclosed with the notice,
I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is an
information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants
and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation
11(in fact in some material respects it contains information
contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an
administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's
practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process,
nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
For the above reasons I ask that my appeal be allowed and that
the authority be directed to refund all that all sums paid.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page