URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 31965--------------------------------------------------
       Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004 PCN
       - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not working
   DIR By: FaeLLe
       Date: August 2, 2024, 8:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I need some help please with regards to an appeal for an
       off-street car park which seems to be regulated under the
       Pictures at:
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/rIohw7K
       Evidence from Local Authority is not available since it seems
       not to be updated on the website. I hope to share this at a
       later date.
       The PCN seems to have been issued under TMA 2004. As far as I
       know, the relevant order is WOKING BOROUGH COUNCIL (OFF-STREET
       PARKING PLACES) (PAY AND DISPLAY AND PAY ON FOOT ON EXIT) ORDER
       2005 (hereafter referred to as the 'Relevant Order' or 'TRO').
       I cannot locate Schedule 1 of this order to confirm the covered
       parking locations .
       CONTEXT
       The driver entered "Victoria Place Car Park" in Woking and
       entered the 'Red ' parking zone by entering a barrier.
       Upon entering the building, a blue sign (with a lot of small
       fine print) stated parking charges without details of
       legislation or penalties.
       No further signs regarding restrictions were displayed before
       entering the 'Red zone,' upon reaching the barrier, the CCTV
       read the vehicle's registration mark and opened the barrier.
       The driver drove up to the second floor (after entering the Red
       zone with a barrier) and saw a shared-use bay for Electric
       Vehicle charging and Disabled users.
       The vehicle was an EV, so the driver parked in the bay and
       noticed that the charge point was not working (it failed to
       charge the vehicle and did not have a solid green light compared
       to the EV chargers on other floors).
       The EV charger had a sign on it that said, "EV charges apply
       from 04 March 2024" (irrelevant, I think, but I included this
       fact for completeness).
       Since the charger was not working, the driver gave up and went
       to the mall security staff. They inquired about the need to move
       the car but were told the vehicle needed not to be moved as it
       was an EV, and charging was not possible.
       However, I believe the same agent went straight up to the car
       and issued a PCN code 87 (parking in a designated disabled bay
       without displaying a permit).
       The driver paid the parking charge before walking to the car and
       seeing the PCN on the windshield.
       Any thoughts on this PCN please. What could be grounds for
       appeal, please?
       FEEDBACK REQUESTED - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
       I believe it should not be enforceable because of the following,
       1. No marking for EV bay in the Relevant Order -
       deception/entrapment of driver?
       2. PCN code issued incorrectly, should be code 71, EV not
       charging.
       3. PCN not valid Shared use bay for EV charging and Disabled bay
       but driver could not charge as bay not operational (proof of no
       light on device demonstrates this as compared to EV chargers on
       other floors)
       4. Condition to charge EV when using bay not enforceable as this
       condition was not agreed or shown to the driver before they
       entered the mall (blue sign at the entrance does not state this
       condition, it is only shown by a Red sign at the bay)
       5. Signs are not compliant with TSRG 2016
       6. Driver was misled by mall service staff (I will try to get
       CCTV proof of this through SAR)
       The driver used provisions allowed to them under Paragraph 3(g)
       of the TRO which indicates the vehicle was reserved for a
       vehicle of their class (Electric Vehicle). The paragraph is
       quoted below for convenience,
       "(g) The driver of a vehicle shall not permit it to wait in a
       reserved bay within a
       parking place unless the bay has been specifically reserved (as
       indicated
       by a sign or other writing) for his or her particular class of
       vehicle or
       person."
       Other information I believe is relevant,
       -
       Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in
       relation to a vehicle if it is stationary in circumstances in
       which any of the offences specified under "Traffic Management
       Act 2004 c. > SCHEDULE 7 > Part 1 > Parking contraventions
       outside Greater London > Paragraph 4"; this requires compliance
       with TSGRD 2016.
       - Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road
       markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the
       TRO. These circumstances may make the order unenforceable. If a
       representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road
       marking was defective, the authority should accept the
       representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any
       appeal.
       - Since this was a dual-use bay for EV charging, an observation
       period should have been maintained but not performed on this
       occasion. This was a procedural impropriety.
       PCN FRONT
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/pmVStFO.jpeg
       PCN REAR
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/OtXBFQW.jpeg
       SIGN AT ENTRANCE
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/JjhnAAy.jpeg
       PARKING LOCATION UNDER DISCUSSION
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/7lyfyXK.jpeg
       #Post#: 31977--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: August 2, 2024, 9:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Any council pics?
       What signage also makes it a disabled bay - this looks unusual.
       #Post#: 31987--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: August 2, 2024, 11:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       By way of information, TSRGD has no legal effect off-street.
       #Post#: 31995--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: Pressman
       Date: August 2, 2024, 12:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I understand this may not directly assist with your appeal, but
       I draw on my experience in Kingston upon Thames, specifically at
       the charging points on Union Street.
       On one occasion, I encountered a faulty charger, and I still
       connected it to my car. The enforcement officer, not realising
       the car wasn't charging, refrained from issuing a ticket.
       However, I recognise that failing to charge the vehicle does
       attract a penalty.
       From your photograph, it's clear the bay in question is not a
       disabled bay. In fact, the penalty for displaying a disabled
       badge while parked at a charger without actively charging is the
       same as parking in a loading bay without loading.
       It's uncommon to see a charging bay also designated as a
       disabled bay, and from your picture, it doesn't appear to be one
       of those dual-use parking spaces, apart from disabled badges, to
       need a ticket.
       #Post#: 32011--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: FaeLLe
       Date: August 2, 2024, 2:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It looks like Woking council refrains from giving evidence of
       PCNs issued as there is no legal requirement to do so (this is
       just like the City of Westminster who has confirmed this to me
       in writing).
       --- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
       >
       > Any council pics?
       >
       > What signage also makes it a disabled bay - this looks
       unusual.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 32013--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: Pressman
       Date: August 2, 2024, 2:30 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You may appeal the ticket because you parked in a green electric
       charging bay, not a blue disabled bay.
       A dual-use charging-disabled bay features the orange disabled
       logo painted on it.
       #Post#: 32015--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: FaeLLe
       Date: August 2, 2024, 2:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Pressman link ---
       >
       > A dual-use charging-disabled bay features the orange disabled
       logo painted on it.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       What are the legal grounds to dispute that? The council could
       argue that the requirement for charging while parking is shown
       on the sign board.
       The actual bay as seen on other floors is a diagonal line
       running through it which shows a green shaded EV sign on the top
       left corner and a Blue shaded disabled bay parking in the bottom
       right.
       Where is the requirement for an orange disabled bay stated as a
       requirement please?
       #Post#: 32020--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: Pressman
       Date: August 2, 2024, 3:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Although I have no training in motoring law, the Penalty Charge
       Notice (PCN) you mentioned states that you parked in a disabled
       bay without displaying a blue badge.
       However, the photograph of your car in the parking bay clearly
       shows that you were parked in an electric vehicle charging bay,
       not a disabled bay.
       Therefore, you have grounds to appeal, as the alleged breach of
       parking in a disabled bay did not take place.
       #Post#: 32038--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: August 2, 2024, 6:36 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Contact Woking and ask for the CEO's pictures.
       #Post#: 32049--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
       PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
   DIR By: FaeLLe
       Date: August 2, 2024, 7:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
       >
       > Contact Woking and ask for the CEO's pictures.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       They have written to me and confirmed they are not required to
       do so by law and CEO notes are sufficient.
       This is the same stance adopted by City of Westminster Council.
       It seems like the position some of them are adopting now, I have
       seen some other posts where this has been observed:/
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 3
   DIR Next Page