DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32207--------------------------------------------------
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 4, 2024, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, the markings, signs and the noticeboard conditions posted
are a mess.
The contravention did not occur. You accept that you parked in a
signed electric vehicles only bay and were not charging, in
which case the contravention should refer to electric vehicles.
There is no basis for the council to claim that you parked in a
disabled bay - while it was in force- because there is no
signage to this effect.
It stands to reason that 'electric vehicles ONLY - while
charging' is unambiguous and does not allow vehicles displaying
a BB to park.
#Post#: 33717--------------------------------------------------
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 18, 2024, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the advice to date. Since I recently lost my job,
I have been struggling to find a new one and got distracted.
Appreciate a review of the appeal below,
--- Quote ---
>
> I am writing to formally appeal against the Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle, registration number [Vehicle
Registration Number], on [Date of PCN]. The PCN was issued under
contravention code 87, alleging that the vehicle was parked in a
designated disabled bay without displaying a permit. However, I
believe this PCN was issued incorrectly for the reasons outlined
below.
>
> The vehicle was parked in a dual-use bay that is designated
both for use by electric vehicles for charging and for disabled
users. The driver of the vehicle parked within the bay using
entitlements permitted to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) currently effective at the
location, it states:
>
> "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."
>
> As an electric vehicle, the vehicle in question qualifies
under the provisions allowed by the TRO as the bay is permitted
to be used by electric vehicles. Therefore, the PCN issued under
contravention code 87 is not applicable to the circumstances in
which the vehicle was parked.
>
> Furthermore, if the bay has any other intended usage beyond
what is clearly indicated, the registered keeper submits that
the signage and road markings are insufficient and potentially
misleading to drivers. Proper signage is crucial to ensure that
drivers are fully aware of any restrictions in place and comply
with any relevant parking requirements.
>
> Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be
cancelled. I have attached relevant documentation and
photographs to support my appeal.
>
> I look forward to your prompt response and trust that this
matter will be resolved in a fair and just manner.
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 33719--------------------------------------------------
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 18, 2024, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Council evidence has been made available on the portal now.
Please help indicate if this changes anything.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/luu2q3R.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/mVbr0UM.jpg
#Post#: 33823--------------------------------------------------
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 19, 2024, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> It's not a shared use bay, it's a bay with conflicting
markings and signs, which conflict is NOT resolved by reference
to the Ts and Cs board.
>
> The sign is clear: electric vehicle parking - only while
charging.
>
> So if it's not charging?
>
> Then as regards the sign it's not complying. In which case
code 71 applies:
>
> 71 Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during
restricted hours without charging. Off-street car parks.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
>
> And the order doesn't refer to electric vehicles*(why would
it, it's dated 2005), I'm surprised it doesn't refer to
chariots.
> *- or electronic payments!
>
--- End Quote ---
So if the TRO doesn't refer to specific conditions for parking
bays can they be enforced through only signs for PCN's issued
under TMA 2004?
#Post#: 33840--------------------------------------------------
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 19, 2024, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO no.
All signs and markings do is to give notice to drivers of
provisions(restrictions) within an Order. They cannot invent
restrictions which are not underpinned by an Order.
#Post#: 35489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: September 3, 2024, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the inputs everyone. Council has cancelled the PCN a
few weeks ago.
Response from council:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BnzOe0LlKGlGnYGrn2YPC63QhxsnD3bJ/
Representations made:
--- Quote ---
>
> We am writing to you today to make submissions regarding the
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to the registration number
VRM, on 02 AUGUST 2024.
>
> The alleged contravention stated within the PCN did not occur.
The PCN was issued incorrectly for the reasons outlined below.
>
> The PCN was issued under contravention code 87, alleging that
the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled bay without
displaying a permit. However, the driver of the vehicle had
sufficient authority granted to them to park in the alleged
parking bay where the contravention was said to have occurred.
>
> The vehicle was parked in a dual-use bay that is designated
both for use by electric vehicles for charging and for disabled
users. The driver of the vehicle parked within the bay using
entitlements permitted to them under Paragraph 3(g) of the
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) currently effective at the
location, it states:
>
> "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."
>
> Since the vehicle to which the PCN was issued is an electric
vehicle, the vehicle in question qualifies under the provisions
allowed by the TRO as the bay is permitted to be used by
electric vehicles.
>
> Therefore, the PCN issued under contravention code 87 is not
applicable to the circumstances in which the vehicle was parked.
>
> Furthermore, if the bay has any other intended usage beyond
what is clearly indicated, the registered keeper submits that
the signage and road markings are insufficient and potentially
misleading to drivers. Proper signage is crucial to ensure that
drivers are fully aware of any restrictions in place and comply
with any relevant parking requirements.
>
> Given the above, I respectfully request that the PCN be
cancelled. I have attached relevant documentation in the form
photographs to support my appeal.
> - The first attachment clearly shows the PCN was issued in a
vehicle where EV's are entitled to park (by virtue of council
signage).
> - The second picture shows the relevant bay under discussion
when it is empty; this demonstrates the shared-use nature of the
parking bay.
>
> I look forward to your prompt response and trust that this
matter will be resolved in a fair and just manner.
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Registered Keeper
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 35502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Shared use bay - Electric charging & Disabled - TMA 2004
PCN - Code 87 PCN issued instead of 71 - Charger not workin
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 3, 2024, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That was a long-winded challenge - they must have lost the will
to live and given up.
It isn't a shared use bay as we said - it's a charging bay that
accommodates disabled drivers.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page