DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 14, 2025, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It certainly does nowt justify the impounding of my car.
I like the text, so ram it up them ! And, of course, having
been towed, the OP has paid all there is to pay so taking the
matter to London Tribunals is a no-brainer
#Post#: 77058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: i
Date: June 18, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much. This has been incredibly helpful.
You might be surprised to hear that my friends at Waltham Forest
have rejected my appeal. [Letter]
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fSmrimPla0040DRxMJl1fe7TRO-q_pj9/view?usp=drive_link
I will be taking this to tribunals and need your help once again
please.
(1) Which of their proposed 'limited grounds' would you deem
most appropriate to select?
(2) Details of appeal - can I use the same content as above?
#Post#: 77081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 18, 2025, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They've not addressed anything in your reps so that's a good
start for you.
But it may just come down to mitigation, which the tribunal
can't consider for allowed appeals but an adjudicator can
recommend say a refund of the removal fee as I think the DoT's
Department of Transport’s Statutory Guidance on traffic
management purpose is well worth bringing to their attention.
I guess penalty exceeded is the best ground of appeal.
Opt for a personal online hearing if you can.
#Post#: 77091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 18, 2025, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, look at your timeline again pl:
Timeline 1 May
10.03: PCN issued
10.36: Authorised for Removal
12.22 (approx): Towed and sent to vehicle pound - this time was
on TRACE London from memory, but has since been updated as I
have collected vehicle.
15.49: Paid full amount of £360 for vehicle to be released from
pound
There is a photo showing the car lifted OFF the road timed at
10.34. How could it have been removed 2 minutes before being
'authorised' at 10.36!
An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear
guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use
immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which
vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the
contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and
authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the
police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle
requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be
taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately
trained CEO.
#Post#: 77093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 18, 2025, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good spot HCA - something more to add to the appeal. Looks like
they lifted it and did the notice just after. If that's
highlighted at the start of the appeal they may cave in.
#Post#: 79880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: i
Date: July 7, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both, this has been incredibly helpful and honestly
really grateful for your expertise and insight.
My hearing will happen over Teams on 29th July. I have gathered
the following evidence to submit but will once again appreciate
your help in strengthening the case.
Let me know your thoughts? Tribunals evidence
HTML https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Br9XFdxavYn1jqBFj1JPTZZidLPl4VZUlI818JFIL5U/edit?slide=id.g36d723f663c_0_95#slide=id.g36d723f663c_0_95
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> They've not addressed anything in your reps so that's a good
start for you.
>
> But it may just come down to mitigation, which the tribunal
can't consider for allowed appeals but an adjudicator can
recommend say a refund of the removal fee as I think the DoT's
Department of Transport’s Statutory Guidance on traffic
management purpose is well worth bringing to their attention.
>
> I guess penalty exceeded is the best ground of appeal.
>
> Opt for a personal online hearing if you can.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, look at your timeline again pl:
>
> Timeline 1 May
>
> 10.03: PCN issued
> 10.36: Authorised for Removal
> 12.22 (approx): Towed and sent to vehicle pound - this time
was on TRACE London from memory, but has since been updated as I
have collected vehicle.
> 15.49: Paid full amount of £360 for vehicle to be released
from pound
>
> There is a photo showing the car lifted OFF the road timed at
10.34. How could it have been removed 2 minutes before being
'authorised' at 10.36!
>
> An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear
guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use
immobilise or remove.
>
> The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which
vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the
contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and
authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the
police.
>
> The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle
requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be
taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately
trained CEO.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79890--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 7, 2025, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks like an excellent presentation. Hopefully Mr Andersen will
have a look. He spotted the timing issue on the tow and you must
ensure this is discussed. I think you won't win on the
contravention but hopefully on the tow.
Offence is spelt with a c.
The picture of another car on a single yellow is not really
relevant - they can't remove all vehicles.
#Post#: 79903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 7, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, unless the council have uploaded their evidence, then IMO
what you've assembled is premature.
Do you have the TRACE report to which you referred?
'Where vehicles are removed, enforcement authorities should
contact the police or, in London, the towed vehicle tracing
service (TRACE) operated by London councils and advise them of
the time, place, vehicle registration number, and pound to
attend for retrieval so they can deal with queries from
motorists who report their vehicle stolen.'.
Similarly, where are the council's policies as regards removal?
'An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear
guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use
immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which
vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the
contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and
authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the
police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle
requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be
taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately
trained CEO.
The immobilisation and removal operatives should not take the
decision.
Vehicles should not be immobilised or removed by contractors
unless a suitably trained CEO is present to confirm that the
contravention falls within the guidelines.'
IMO, you should write to the authority, refer to your PCN and
Case Number and request copies of their vehicle removal
guidelines failing which you request that these are included
within their evidence to the tribunal. You would also request
confirmation, again either under separate cover or within their
evidence, the the CEO who authorised the removal was suitably
qualified and authorised to do so under this policy and the
council's Scheme of Delegation.
Penalty
#Post#: 88373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 4, 2025, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This appeal was lost. Any grounds for review?
--------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
1. This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN)
imposed by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the Authority.
2. The appeal was listed as a personal appeal and the Appellant
attended. The Adjudicator adjourned the case to allow the
Authority to respond to further representations made by the
Appellant. The Adjudicator concluded the case on the papers.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant relies upon the grounds of appeal that there
has been a procedural impropriety and that the penalty amount
exceeds the amount applicable.
4. The Appellant has questioned why the ‘no waiting’
contravention was used rather than a contravention of parking
(partially) outside of a parking bay. The Appellant says that
they are a resident of the road and parked in good faith not
realising there had been a minor encroachment onto the yellow
line.
5. The Appellant requested a copy of the Traffic Regulation
Order.
6. The Appellant referred to the Department for Transport
guidance for local authorities and questioned whether the Civil
enforcement Officer (CEO) was appropriately trained. The
Appellant quotes from the guidelines as follows ‘the decision on
whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an
exercise of judgement and must only be taken following specific
authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO’.
7. The Appellant relies on the authorisation notice and says
that the authorisation was provided after the vehicle had
started to be removed.
The Authority’s Case
8. The Authority has submitted a copy of the Traffic Management
Order dated 25th July 2019 and have highlighted paragraph 8
which deals with removal of a vehicle from a parking or loading
place. The Authority has further highlighted a section of
schedule 1 of the order with a ‘Map title list’ of BC50.
9. The Authority submits that the Traffic Management Act 2004
empowers local authority civil enforcement officers to clamp or
remove any vehicle that is parked in contravention of parking
regulations. The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations
1986 were the regulations, and these were amended through the
Removal and Disposal of Vehicle Regulations 1993 to enable Civil
Enforcement Officers to remove or arrange for the removal of
vehicles that are parked in contravention of parking
regulations.
10. The Authority confirms that Civil Enforcement Officers are
compelled to work in accordance with the current Code of
Practice as laid down by the then Parking Committee for London
now incorporated into the London Councils. This can be obtained
through the London Councils:
HTML https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk
Findings of Fact
11. I am satisfied, from the photographs taken by the CEO, that
the vehicle was parked in contravention of the restrictions with
the whole of the front wheel on the yellow line. The yellow line
is accompanied by a ‘no waiting’ sign. The CEO has identified
the correct restriction code and the restriction is lawfully in
place.
12. The decision to remove the vehicle is in the exercise of the
discretion of the CEO and it is not open to me as an adjudicator
to challenge the exercise of discretion.
13. As the CEO has the power to authorise removal, the fact that
the authorisation document is signed after the vehicle has
started to be removed does not cause a procedural impropriety.
Outcome of the Appeal
14. The appeal is dismissed. I am satisfied, from the evidence
before me, that the penalty was validly imposed in relation to
the use of the vehicle and that none of the grounds of appeal
are made out.
#Post#: 88375--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest, Code 01 parked in a restricted street,
Beresford Rd E4, Single yellow outside No. 20
DIR By: i
Date: September 4, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - was about to post this eve after work!
I made it clear in the appeal that I was appealing only the tow
charge and not the PCN
Unsure if there's anything else I can do so would appreciate all
the help and advice you might have!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page