DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44002--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth - 01 - Parked in restricted street (single yellow) -
Outside Jurisdiction
DIR By: theeagleman
Date: November 4, 2024, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> As I said Gipsy Hill is not an adopted road and the double
yellow are not assigned to Gipsy Hill but to the adopted side
roads.
>
> The systems:
>
>
HTML https://geomap.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main
>
>
HTML https://streets.appyway.com/lambeth
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the links.
#Post#: 44748--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth - 01 - Parked in restricted street (single yellow) -
Outside Jurisdiction
DIR By: theeagleman
Date: November 9, 2024, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: theeagleman link ---
>
>
> Formal Represenations
>
> The appeal for the above PCN is on the basis the contravention
never occurred, for the below reasons.
>
> Procedural Impropriety – Outside Jurisdiction
>
> The exact location at which the PCN was issued, is part of
Southwark (please see image below and also reflected in the
evidence from the CEO – Evidence #1). The failure of Lambeth to
provide evidence to that assertion on the initial informal
appeal, indicates that there is no agreement with Southwark.
This is further proven by an email from Southwark (Evidence #2)
who categorically claim no other local authority has any
agreement to issue PCNs on their behalf. As such the PCN issued
by Lambeth is invalid and unenforceable.
>
> Evidence #1 – Border of Lambeth and Southwark – Vehicle was
categorically in Southwark (data from
HTML https://boroughs.dpope.uk/)
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/YBFR6Mg/Lambeth-Boundary.jpg
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Qdtkh07/Southwark.jpg
>
> Evidence #2 – Email from Southwark Parking Department – 10th
October 2024
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/8MQN0QH/Southwark-Email.jpg
>
> Procedural Impropriety – Failure to Consider
>
> Lambeth was clearly asked to provide an agreement with
Southwark, which allows them issue PCNs on behalf of them. This
was not considered or provided, and instead asserted that the
CEO issued the PCN correctly, as a boilerplate response.
>
> I would like draw attention to the following case: 2210280742
>
> The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was
parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone
without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid
physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for
that place where required, or without payment of the parking
charge when in Orford Road on 2 December 2020 at 14.01.
> I have considered the evidence in this case and I have allowed
this appeal, after some consideration, because I find that the
Authority's Notice of Rejection does not consider the
Appellant's representations and respond accordingly.
>
> I find that the mere assertion that the contravention has been
committed is insufficient.
>
> To that extent I am not satisfied that the enforcement
authority has discharged its duty under regulation 5(2)(b) of
the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, which is to
consider the representations and any supporting evidence by the
person making them.
>
> In my judgment an Appellant is entitled to have the points
they raise properly considered by the Enforcement Authority
pursuant to its duty under regulation 5(2)(b). On this occasion
the authority has failed to do this.
> Regulation 4(4) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007 provides the grounds on which representations may be made
against a Notice to Owner.
>
> Regulation 4(4)(f) states:
> 'that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of
the enforcement authority'
> "Procedural impropriety" in this context means a failure by
the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by
the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the General Regulations or
Representations and Appeals Regulations. This includes, pursuant
to Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007 the taking of any step, whether or not involving the
service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the
conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period
when, it is authorised or required to be taken.
> I find that the failure to consider the representations of the
Appellant, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.
> Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007 provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground
specified in Regulation 4(4) above applies, "he shall allow the
appeal".
> In light of this finding I am not required to determine any
other matters in issue.
>
> Loading/Unloading Restrictions
>
> At the time of the alleged contravention, a large prepaid
order was being loaded onto the car and a redacted invoice was
provided to for the purpose of the business. The invoice was
redacted for Data Protection purposes. For the purposes of
specific appeal, we do not wish to reveal the details of the
customer for this order, however we shall do so at the tribunal
to provide evidence, should you choose to reject this appeal on
above grounds.
>
> I ask you cancel this PCN.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Any further thoughts of anyone on this, but I am happy to submit
as is.
Thanks
#Post#: 44781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth - 01 - Parked in restricted street (single yellow) -
Outside Jurisdiction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 9, 2024, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, you're going about this wrongly.
Their response to your initial reps states that they've
considered your points. I don't see that they have to go into
extensive detail, by implication if they have then they reject
the core of your argument i.e. that Lambeth are not the
enforcement authority for the location.
You don't need to go at this indirectly. If you're correct, then
you win(eventually) and they lose.
There are 2 limbs to your argument IMO:
1. The location is not situated within the enforcement
authority's area i.e. it is situated within the London Borough
of Southwark. The London Borough of Lambeth council is therefore
prevented from demanding penalties under the Traffic Management
Act.
2. If the location falls within the borough of Lambeth then the
contravention did not occur because at the time of contravention
the driver was engaged in an excepted activity namely *****.
As regards 1, your evidence is *********
As regards 2, your evidence is ******.
#Post#: 45754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth - 01 - Parked in restricted street (single yellow) -
Outside Jurisdiction
DIR By: theeagleman
Date: November 15, 2024, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments.
Then I will just go on the following:
Procedural Impropriety – Outside Jurisdiction
The exact location at which the PCN was issued, is part of
Southwark (please see image below and also reflected in the
evidence from the CEO – Evidence #1). The failure of Lambeth to
provide evidence to that assertion on the initial informal
appeal, indicates that there is no agreement with Southwark.
This is further proven by an email from Southwark (Evidence #2)
who categorically claim no other local authority has any
agreement to issue PCNs on their behalf. As such the PCN issued
by Lambeth is invalid and unenforceable.
Evidence 1: Map of borders, address of businesses which show it
is in Southwark and email from Southwark
Loading/Unloading Restrictions
At the time of the alleged contravention, a large prepaid order
was being loaded onto the car and a redacted invoice was
provided to for the purpose of the business. The invoice was
redacted for Data Protection purposes. However, please see
attached with only redacted name (but address still showing).
Evidence 2: semi-redacted invoice (address only, but name
redacted) - or should the full underacted invoice be supplied?
I will leave out failure to consider and any accompanying case
for that.
So will keep it simple.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page