DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 7, 2024, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf<br
/>specifies at 13.6.8. that:
[indent]
Where two bay markings, associated with different conditions,
are sited next to each other there should normally be a gap of
about 100 mm between them. If adjacent bays would normally have
different widths, the greatest width should be adopted for all
to avoid a potentially confusing stepped edge.
[/indent]
What the council purport to have done is created a single bay
with different conditions, which is not a permitted layout. If
the bay had been laid out correctly you would have been on
notice that you were parking in a different bay potentially
subject to different conditions.
#Post#: 29077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: mogul87
Date: July 8, 2024, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf<br
/>specifies at 13.6.8. that:
>
> [indent]
> Where two bay markings, associated with different conditions,
are sited next to each other there should normally be a gap of
about 100 mm between them. If adjacent bays would normally have
different widths, the greatest width should be adopted for all
to avoid a potentially confusing stepped edge.
> [/indent]
>
> What the council purport to have done is created a single bay
with different conditions, which is not a permitted layout. If
the bay had been laid out correctly you would have been on
notice that you were parking in a different bay potentially
subject to different conditions.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks will include this too
#Post#: 31747--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: July 31, 2024, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
still waiting for the council to respond to the informal
challenge
In the meantime I have received the Traffic orders via a FOI
request.
The order says the dedicated disabled bay will be at "Munday
Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in
line wth the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road
southward for a distance of 6.1 metres"
Will appreciate if someone here can let me know if the TMO adds
any other points of defense
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ntif32ctpxtqp1cg6pca5/2017-112-DRPH-Signed-copy.pdf?rlkey=fwh1kx7mggbhznxvib9snbkgu&st=sybilmd0&dl=0
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5hmfo3ta1w3phlj32rg9g/2018-71-Canning-Town-Disabled-Resident-Bays-Order-Signed-copy.pdf?rlkey=xi72sd25ggget2c7wpwo55n9x&st=ym2te27o&dl=0
#Post#: 31878--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 1, 2024, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are searchable versions of The Newham (Canning Town)
(Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j65G1TUhOz8BgPZjYRkw7H2lWpkYvVuL/view<br
/>and The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking
Places)
(No. 1, 2017) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2018
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view.
[member=832]taffer87[/member] let us know when you get the
notice to owner and I'll help with the formal representations.
#Post#: 32420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: mogul87
Date: August 6, 2024, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Following
#Post#: 32421--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: August 6, 2024, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Here are searchable versions of The Newham (Canning Town)
(Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2017
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j65G1TUhOz8BgPZjYRkw7H2lWpkYvVuL/view<br
/>and The Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking
Places)
(No. 1, 2017) (Amendment No. 1) Order 2018
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view.
>
> [member=832]taffer87[/member] let us know when you get the
notice to owner and I'll help with the formal representations.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you, will post NTO when I receive it in my name - could be
a while as will go to lease company first in their name
Here is the council response to informal challenge. Informal
challenge I submitted also included for completeness.
Informal challenge:
"1. The council enforcement officer did not follow the required
observation period to see if an exempt activity was taking place
and hence for the breach of council policy the PCN. Council
observation policy mandates a minimum of 5 minute observation
period but the enforcement officer issued the PCN instantly
The policy can be found here:
HTML https://www.newham.gov.uk/downloads/file/3926/newhamparkingpolicyprocedures
This shows on page 51/81 of the pdf page numbers (or page 48 of
the bottom right page numbers) that a mandatory observation
period of 5 minutes is required before an enforcement officer
can issue a PCN under Newham Policy for Code 16 Parking in a
permit space without displaying a valid permit.
If the council disagrees with this please provide the full
observation policy which allows an enforcement officer to issue
a PCN for code 16 without any observation period at all as the
PCN was incorrectly issued instantly, so an informed decision
regarding next steps can be taken
2. This is only an advisory bay so no PCN can be issued in any
case, please provide the full Traffic Management Order that
allows the council to issue a PCN against this particular
contravention on this bay including the full list of exempt
activities
3. The location stated in the PCN "OS 14" is incorrect and not
clear
4. 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.
If the council disagrees please provide the full
dispensation/approval from DFT so an informed decision regarding
next steps can be taken.
5.The Council's intention of reserving disabled bays for
residents only is discriminatory (against non-resident disabled
people) and I would refer you to both the Equality Act 2010 and
moreso to The Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Therefore the traffic management rationale giving rise to the
TMO is fatally flawed to the extent that the Council actions are
ultra vires. In such circumstances enforcement of this bay
cannot proceed.
6. The bay markings are extremely faded making it hard for
drivers to be aware there are different policies / restrictions
for different parts of the bay.
7. Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual specifies at 13.6.8.
that:
“Where two bay markings, associated with different conditions,
are sited next to each other there should normally be a gap of
about 100 mm between them. If adjacent bays would normally have
different widths, the greatest width should be adopted for all
to avoid a potentially confusing stepped edge.”
However there is no gap in the bay markings at all. There should
be double edge markings to differentiate the “resident disabled
permit holder only” bay from the others. What the council
purport to have done is created a single bay with different
conditions, which is not a permitted layout. If the bay had been
laid out correctly drivers would be on notice that they were
parking in a different bay potentially subject to different
conditions. Thus the council cannot issue a PCN at this
location.
If the council believes they are complying with 13.6.8 or have
dispensation or rationale for not complying then please provide
this in writing so that an informed decision can be taken
regarding the next steps.
8. Council should use its discretion to cancel the PCN this
being the first offence for this driver."
HTML https://i.ibb.co/cwYPW5d/Council-response-to-informal-challenge-Page1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/0Ksk0N3
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WvTnvVq/Council-response-to-informal-challenge-Page2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Dfq4frs
#Post#: 39211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 2, 2024, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have finally received the NTO in my name and address after
they sent to lease co who is the RK and lease co wrote a simple
letter stating car is on a long term lease of 3 year with me.
Lease co has not received a notice of acceptance but council
may still say they sent
All and [member=1]cp8759[/member] can you please help in written
reps?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/935Mrrn/IMG-4156.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/XkRwCCX
HTML https://i.ibb.co/D7sNYch/IMG-4155.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/LCbMrjm
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jvJ3tK7/IMG-4157.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/JR3rZLX
HTML https://i.ibb.co/GJ0Hqtn/IMG-4158.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/xsDFNfX
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zJvGMRw/IMG-4159.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/xHTJkjQ
#Post#: 39213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: October 2, 2024, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please re-instate/give the Reg Mark and PCN number(s)
#Post#: 39214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: taffer87
Date: October 2, 2024, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Already posted all council photos in the very first
and second posts so there should hopefully be no need.
#Post#: 39215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Munday road E16 - London newham - parked on disabled bay by
mistake
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 2, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=832]taffer87[/member] this is really simple : if you
search the two traffic orders for "Mundy Road" there is only one
hit at item 45 of Schedule 2 to the 2018 order
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ATdZ50zBmaeni9L9IeqijTCwJH0oZZC/view:
[indent]
Munday Road, the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a
point in line with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday
Road southward for a distance of 6.1 metres.
[/indent]
However the common boundary is here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WqbDMwLoEFwzvGo7
and if you zoom out,
it's quite obvious that this is not where the bay has been
painted, it starts at least two car length further south than it
should, so no part of your car is in the area designated by that
order.
In the circumstances we can cut out all the woffle from the
informal representations and just go with this:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Nehwam,
The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because The
Newham (Canning Town) (Disabled Resident Parking Places) (No. 1)
Order 2017 (which I suspect you have not bothered to read) does
not designate any parking place at the location where my car was
parked. The order designates a parking place on "Munday Road,
the east side, from a point 8.1 metres south of a point in line
with the common boundary of Nos. 16 and 18 Munday Road southward
for a distance of 6.1 metres", but if you have a look on Google
Street view at
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/mvqxwbHQ21MHV2UY9
you
will see the bay has been painted at least two car lengths
further south than it should have. The result is that despite
the signage, my car was not actually parked on a section of road
designated by that order.
I invite you to actually read your own traffic order and apply
your mind to the issues I have raised, if you issue a generic
rejection with all the usual templated drivel about how the
circumstances raised do not amount to an exemption or sufficient
mitigation, I will apply to London Tribunals for a costs order
on the ground that the notice of rejection is wholly
unreasonable. This will apply even if you do not contest the
appeal.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page