DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 14, 2024, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I stopped as I awaited recovery I got a ticket
But the council's evidence is that you were not with the
vehicle.
Which is correct?
Being broken down is a legitimate defence, but it has limits as
you can imagine i.e. you cannot wait for days just because
you're broken down, you must try to get out of contravention as
soon as you can.
So, you must deal with your appeal to the adjudicator in a
measured way. To do which, I suggest you need to provide the
following:
How far from where you were parked legitimately were you when
you broke down;
At what time;
What did you do;
Why were you not at the car when the CEO arrived;
When were you towed;
What repairs were undertaken at the garage?
Proof from your or someone's bank account/credit card that the
invoiced sums were actually paid*
A basic trail of evidence.
*- I suspect that the authority have had to deal with 'I broke
down but got recovered' claims before and are sceptical. There
might be a lucrative market in selling dodgy invoices for all I
know. But your evidence trail would deal with this.
Whatever you do, IMO do not go into this just with an 'I told
you I broke down' story.
#Post#: 22493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: ticketed_off
Date: May 14, 2024, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I feel a little bit awkward about posting a comment as I've just
been a lurker whilst waiting for my own case to go through. But
whilst doing that (as something of a displacement activity, I
suppose) I have tried to learn as much as I possibly can about
Traffic Orders, the Tribunals etc, and felt I might be able to
share my tuppence worth here.
Surely a key factor here is that the relevant articles of the
Traffic Order "do not apply" where the "person in control of the
vehicle" is "prevented from proceeding by circumstances outside
their control".
This would seem to me to have not much to do with the Council's
talk of an "exemption to leave an alleged broken-down vehicle
unattended on a yellow line restricted area". The 'exemption',
per the Traffic Order, would seem instead to hinge on whether
the reason the vehicle was stopped was circumstances within, or
outside of, the control of the person 'controlling' the vehicle.
And, unless it is supported by precedent, I am unclear how the
Council can claim that walking away from the vehicle during the
period that recovery is being awaited kills that 'defence' and
is not prima facie "allowed" (surely a matter of statutory
interpretation, and not council policy). A reasonable
interpretation of the Traffic Order to me (perhaps the Tribunal
feels differently), would be that if a driver was reasonably
awaiting recovery, there would be no reason under this Traffic
Order they could not take a refreshment break, or even go inside
their house, provided that the facts preventing their vehicle
from proceeding had not changed in that time. Indeed that might
be a sensible thing for a person legally in charge of a vehicle
to do.
Unless there is tribunal or legal precedent on this matter, it
seems to me that if the Council wanted to ensure that drivers
remained with a broken down vehicle at all times, they should
have sought to carve that out within the Traffic Order (if
allowed under the enabling Acts)?
If the Council doubt the evidence and suspect that the receipt
provided is irrelevant, or fraudulent, then presumably that is
an argument they might develop at Tribunal stage and HC
Andersen's suggestions, if followed, above would I am sure go
some way to finding evidence that may disprove that. It's a
shame there is no time on the recovery receipt. Regardless, (and
again, it may be there is Tribunal precedent on this), I am
unclear that the Google status of a particular recovery company
is relevant here as opposed to the time that it was called, the
time it arrived, and whether it seemed a reasonable option (e.g.
calling a recovery company from Scotland might not be
reasonable, but asking a friend to come from the next Borough
with a tow-rope might be reasonable, especially given the
response times of major recovery companies such as the AA/RAC
etc).
The above is based on zero experience of Traffic Tribunals or
parking cases, and there will undoubtedly be evidential and
tactical things to consider, so I'll now pipe down and cede to
the masters who know so much and help us for so little!
#Post#: 22507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 15, 2024, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If a driver wishes to rely upon an exemption, then the burden
lies with them to prove their entitlement. The standard is
balance of probabilities.
What's excluded from 'beyond driver's control'? Running out of
fuel, pre-existing faults and a few others. Hence why the
garage's report is essential, even claiming to have been towed
after the event wouldn't IMO establish the exemption.
However convinced the OP is by their own knowledge, this is not
the issue, they have to persuade others with evidence and this
should be easy to put together.
#Post#: 22871--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: Jamran
Date: May 17, 2024, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> I stopped as I awaited recovery I got a ticket
>
> But the council's evidence is that you were not with the
vehicle.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> Being broken down is a legitimate defence, but it has limits
as you can imagine i.e. you cannot wait for days just because
you're broken down, you must try to get out of contravention as
soon as you can.
>
> So, you must deal with your appeal to the adjudicator in a
measured way. To do which, I suggest you need to provide the
following:
>
> How far from where you were parked legitimately were you when
you broke down;
> At what time;
> What did you do;
> Why were you not at the car when the CEO arrived;
> When were you towed;
> What repairs were undertaken at the garage?
> Proof from your or someone's bank account/credit card that the
invoiced sums were actually paid*
>
> A basic trail of evidence.
>
> *- I suspect that the authority have had to deal with 'I broke
down but got recovered' claims before and are sceptical. There
might be a lucrative market in selling dodgy invoices for all I
know. But your evidence trail would deal with this.
>
> Whatever you do, IMO do not go into this just with an 'I told
you I broke down' story.
>
--- End Quote ---
I was not in the vehicle that is why I got a ticket. The
argument they make doesn’t make sense as IF I was in the vehicle
why would a CEO issue a ticket seeing as I had broken down.
Anyway, I was not far from my house, so I went back to get a
jumper pack and also pen and paper to put a message on the
windscreen stating I’d broken down. My house was like 2 minutes
walk from the vehicle.
In that time I got the ticket.
I’d say I was towed about 1330.
Also, I paid cash. If anyone has ever used these small
local/independant recovery companies, you’d know they almost
always only accept cash.
#Post#: 22939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 18, 2024, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line. IMO of course:
The car was in contravention unless an exemption applied;
You claim the car had broken down en route and you stopped where
a restriction applied because you had no alternative;
You also claim that you could not remedy the fault yourself,
hence why the car remained in contravention until towed under
your direction;
Prior to being towed, you say that 'I went back to get a jumper
pack and also pen and paper to put a message on the windscreen
stating I’d broken down.' but don't explain why or what
transpired.
Previously you were asked: So do you have some paperwork about
that repair, such as a diagnostic report or an invoice for parts
and labour?
You replied that you did.
We still haven't seen this crucial piece of evidence.
Currently, I think you'd struggle at adjudication.
#Post#: 22997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: Jamran
Date: May 18, 2024, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Bottom line. IMO of course:
>
> The car was in contravention unless an exemption applied;
> You claim the car had broken down en route and you stopped
where a restriction applied because you had no alternative;
> You also claim that you could not remedy the fault yourself,
hence why the car remained in contravention until towed under
your direction;
>
> Prior to being towed, you say that 'I went back to get a
jumper pack and also pen and paper to put a message on the
windscreen stating I’d broken down.' but don't explain why or
what transpired.
>
> Previously you were asked: So do you have some paperwork about
that repair, such as a diagnostic report or an invoice for parts
and labour?
>
> You replied that you did.
>
> We still haven't seen this crucial piece of evidence.
>
> Currently, I think you'd struggle at adjudication.
>
--- End Quote ---
Firstly, I don’t understand how this has now become an inquest
into whether I’m lying and making fake invoices etc merely by TH
(incorrectly) saying that the recovery company doesn’t exist.
The exemption applies if you break down. I’ve provided proof
that I used a recovery service as I did breakdown. Now the onus
is on TH to prove that the invoice/company does not exist as
they’ve made the claim. This is why I added a link to show the
recovery service I used actually exists. I didn’t know that
it’ll turn into a post where every one of my posts is critiqued
to “catch me out”.
I was asked if I had an invoice showing repairs works that had
taken place. That is all. At no point did anyone ask me to
upload that. In any case, I have uploaded it here.
I went home to get the jumper as I suspected the battery was low
as it wasn’t starting up. Before I started calling recovery
service, I wanted to see if I could fix the issue temporarily
myself so I could park legally.
At the time of the incident I had no clue that a simple PCN
would require forensic analysis and so much documentation. I got
an invoice from the recovery guy thinking that would suffice.
Maybe that was my mistake.
I may have misinterpreted the posts or your intentions and I
apologise if I come across as rude or upset. But it felt to me
that I'm being questioned over the legitimacy of what transpired
here as soon as TH incorrectly and foolishly say the recovery
company doesn’t exist.
#Post#: 23008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 18, 2024, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
'Vehicle brought in' 14 Feb. via recovery'
PCN dated 14 Dec. 2023
Recovery invoice dated 14 Dec. 2023.
I say again, look at your evidence, it doesn't stack up. Perhaps
some people have inserted wrong dates, but it is up to you to
persuade the authorities.
'I broke down' on its own doesn't cut the mustard. The grounds
are ..'beyond the driver's control', therefore the nature of the
breakdown IS ESSENTIAL and so far you have NO contemporaneous
evidence on this point. The tow doesn't go to the nature of the
breakdown, only that the vehicle was recovered.
#Post#: 23968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 27, 2024, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member] you need to drop the Spanish
inquisition, we operate on the assumption that those who seek
our assistance are telling us the truth unless there is
irrefutable evidence to the contrary (if nothing else because if
they don't tell us the truth and their case falls flat on its
face at the tribunal, it's all on them). While seeing documents
on the forum can be useful, nobody is actually required to show
you anything.
[member=280]Jamran[/member] I think you should carry on, I'm
going to drop you a PM.
#Post#: 24115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 27, 2024, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am trying to ensure that the OP presents evidence which
supports their argument. I am not doubting their view, but we
are not their final arbiters although we can apply the same
standards in order to prepare them for the hurdles which they
face.
To recap, the OP presented a towing invoice, not receipt, but
the authority were not persuaded for the reasons stated. They
then posted a report from the garage which did not support their
case because it was dated 2 months after the incident. IMO, they
need to put these matters right if they're to convince an
adjudicator.
#Post#: 24177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets NTO parking ticket following breakdown
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 27, 2024, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> I am trying to ensure that the OP presents evidence which
supports their argument. I am not doubting their view, but we
are not their final arbiters although we can apply the same
standards in order to prepare them for the hurdles which they
face.
>
--- End Quote ---
There's a way of highlighting the evidential issues without
coming across as one would during cross-examination. End of
debate.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page