DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 21, 2024, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
He can just refer to the driver.
OP, three strands:
1. As said by others, only the person to whom the NTO is
addressed may make reps. They may either do this personally or,
by written authorisation, nominate another person to do so on
their behalf and to represent them at adjudication. You never
become the owner, you only act for them.
2. As far as we know, two very different matters.
a. The more straightforward. Was the driver engaged in an exempt
activity and therefore may the owner tick 'contravention did not
occur'? With respect, although we're managing to piece together
the events there is one crucial element missing i.e. is the
property 'adjacent' to the parking space. We don't need you to
tell us the exact property number but you WILL have to
demonstrate this to the authority because they're not under any
obligation just to take your word for matters.
b. The enforceability of the restriction given the arguments
regarding whether the restriction is signed as required.
This is the council website:
HTML https://www.newham.gov.uk/parking-permits/resident-parking-permits-1/2?documentId=547&categoryId=20124
Unambiguous as far as they are concerned, the bays are permit
bays.
With respect to MMV Redux, IMO it's not possible to get the full
picture without the 'said authorisation' (17 Oct 2011)
particularly the use of what would otherwise be an improper road
marking i.e. TSRGD do not permit the use of the 'Disabled' road
marking visible the other council photos with a permit bay.
3. What the Traffic Order provides - and we don't know at this
stage.
#Post#: 23418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 21, 2024, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> With respect to John U.K, - HCA
--- End Quote ---
@HCA - did you mean MMV Redux: I haven't mentioned traffic
orders?
#Post#: 23423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 21, 2024, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you're correct. Thanks.
I've amended my previous post.
#Post#: 23430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 21, 2024, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Understood, I’ll respond as my father and refer to the incident
as a third person and say my son was loading and unloading. As
for me representing at adjudication, I assume I can do and
mention this after I’ve got the notice of rejection?
In respect to adjacent, the property the luggage was being
loaded from was the next property to the right, t, which we can
prove by providing the council tax or similar I guess.
Also I have attached the Traffic order for the bay to my initial
post at the start of this thread
So HC Anderson out of the three strands weve covered 1, 2a, to
which I we say contravention did not occur or we can say
procedural inproprierty?
As for strand 2b and the point Mike made, would we have select a
different box and are we allowed to have multiple reasons?
Should I just add both summarised?
#Post#: 23432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 21, 2024, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also I’m thinking, if they’ll reject this then I have one final
appeal right to the adjudicator, so shall I submit with main
reason being exception, then mention the other two points around
signage etc giving us more time to solidify our case for final
appeal at next stage ?
#Post#: 23448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 21, 2024, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> There is no ISA (wheelchair) symbol on the sign, therefore it
is not a 'parking place reserved for disabled badge holders.'
>
> Instead, there is the standard 'P' and it is a 'Parking place'
- see item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made
>
> (the bay also looks like it doesn't meet the min. size
requirements for a disabled bay)
>
> IMO, it is a permit bay and the type of user and permit
identifier are Disabled Resident Permit Holder E.
>
> The other way of looking at the issue would be that if it was
a dedicated disabled bay then as it doesn't carry the ISA symbol
(column 3) then this wins on its own and it's not necessary to
explore column 4 issues.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just re-read this and it made sense, but then also re-read what
Mike sent straight after, which made sense and seems to state
taht this a is a non issue, ie the wheelchair sign is no longer
required and thus the signage is valid. Thus am I still going
ahead now with the following grounds alongside my initial
loading reasoning.
"The sign governing the bay is not contained within The Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have the
Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no provision
within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor a permit
identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay reserved for
an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic sign is a
nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN invalid."
Also whats the minimum bay side, I can go out and measure it now
as im looking to submit the rep before midnight tonight - google
giving multiple sizes?
#Post#: 23453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 21, 2024, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the constant spam replies all, really getting into
this, although a shame I left it so late..
So here's the final revised appeal to NtO.
I am appealing the following PCN on the following grounds and
request the PCN is cancelled.
Ground 1. On 16th February 2024, my son was loading the vehicle
from the premise XX which is my property and this property is
adjacent to the parking place in question, as per the TMO that
came into force on 28th November 2015, this is one of the
exemptions allowed as stated on point 11.1.h.
11. (1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order,
any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a
parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and
if
- (h) in any other case the vehicle is waiting for the purpose
of delivering or collecting goods or loading or unloading the
vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the
vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such
purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period
as a parking attendant may approve.'
As it can be noted this (extract from TMO) clearly states
parking in a bay in question is allowed if one is
loading/unloading at a premise adjacent, which was clearly the
case here, as well as the fact the vehicle was parked in the
parking place in question for less then 20 minutes, therefore
the alleged contravention did not occur, as an exemption was in
place and followed accordingly, as the CEO had he observed would
have noticed and made note of had they followed procedure and
enforce the TMO properly. After placing the PCN the CEO had been
informed that the loading was taking place from the adjacent
property, yet this was not taken into consideration.
Ground 2. In addition to the above, there was no parking
available in the resident and pay and display bays on the entire
street or neighbouring street during that period, other than
disabled bays in addition to the one in question, all of which
were empty as can be seen in the attached picture. Had my son
stopped the vehicle on the middle of the street to load, it
would have caused great inconvenience to others and caused a
backlog of traffic, hence parking in the disabled bay adjacent
to my property was the most viable and reasonable approach
considering the circumstances and to be penalised with a PCN for
this is unfair.
Ground 3. The sign governing the bay is not contained within The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor have
the Council obtained DfT permission to use it. There is no
provision within the legislation to use the term "Residents" nor
a permit identifier for anything other than a dedicated bay
reserved for an individual disabled person.Therefore the traffic
sign is a nullity and cannot be enforced, making the PCN
invalid.
#Post#: 23456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 21, 2024, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why so in your face? There was no contravention because loading
from an adjacent property is an exemption...would suffice.
But now we discover that the driver saw and spoke to the CEO
[After placing the PCN the CEO had been informed that the
loading was taking place from the adjacent property, yet this
was not taken into consideration] who was therefore at the car
at the time and aware that loading was taking place.
And your evidence for this conversation is?
And loading hadn't started/was in progress/was complete?
And if the CEO was aware then the focus changes and so should
the reps e.g. the driver spoke to the CEO part way through
loading but this was ignored and the PCN issued anyway/the CEO
had already issued the PCN and said they didn't know at the
time/said it doesn't make any difference??
We'll get the full story eventually....
#Post#: 23461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 21, 2024, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Why so in your face? There was no contravention because
loading from an adjacent property is an exemption...would
suffice.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry did I say something wrong or was I bit a too full on with
my appeal :O, ie shouldnt add the reference and quotes from TMO?
Sorry, not trying to hide anything, thought to add them to the
appeal to emphasise actions taken as a way to give my appeal
some more umff, but I can see what you mean that it's my word
and no proof :(.
As the loading took place, I was in and out of the house with
luggage, each time I'd go in, I'd close the back or doors
(security consicous some one may pass by and take something). As
I returned to load the CEO was walking off and I noticed the
PCN, at which point I called him and said we were loading etc
but he just said too bad in a way - I can remove this from the
reps, if there is no added benefit in it
So to answer your questions
1. At the point of the PCN no one was at the vehicle, as I was
in the property getting further luggage.
2. Loading was in progress or half way through.
3. With the PCN issued and the conversation with CEO after, how
would it change or impact the reps?
4. Evidence of conversation - I checked my Ring, recording not
available going back that far, so only the CEO's bodycam I
guess, if it goes that far.
The other point I can see if we're basing it on proof/evidence
(fair) is around the parked less then 20 minutes, neither they
nor I can now proove that :/
#Post#: 23477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disabled Bay - Notice to Owner
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: May 22, 2024, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
> Are you confusing the act of "loading" with the process of
"boarding"?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Enceladus,
There was no boarding, was always loading luggage, my father has
only come into the picture as the NtO is in his name and the
property the loading was from is his. The rejection letter
mentioned loading because I had in my initial appeal stated
loading as that is what took place.
I have submitted the above appeal yesterday night, so lets see
what they come back with and can hopefully prepare for
adjudication.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page