DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham towed car while on holiday
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: August 16, 2025, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please can we see the letter or email which confirmed your
permit. Did it require you to check your car daily is the
question I want an answer to.
#Post#: 86031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham towed car while on holiday
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 17, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The recent case below has some relevance in that the key case is
cited and also no evidence was provided of the permit and terms
about checking.
I asked the OP if there was anyone who could take care of the
car while they were away but if not it seems the only remedy is
to store or put the car where there is no possibility of a
suspension while on a holiday of 2-3 weeks, which seems contrary
to natural justice and of course some authorities recognise that
and relocate not impound.
---------------
Case reference 2240499669
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Hackney
VRM XO55DEE
PCN Details
PCN QZ19092876
Contravention date 17 Sep 2024
Contravention time 10:30:00
Contravention location St. Thomas Square
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
Reasons The Appellant attended by telephone for her appeal on 16
December 2024, as a consequence of that attendance I adjourned
the case back to the Authority for their comments, the
adjournment notice was expressed in the following terms, and is
self-explanatory:
"Appeal hearing adjourned by the Adjudicator, Mr Teper, who has
made a finding that the Appellant's vehicle was parked at this
location from late August 2024, and remained parked until the
day of the suspension. He has also made a finding that the
vehicle was parked at the same location on 12 September 2024. He
has preferred the evidence of the Appellant to that of the
Authority's.
In light of these findings Mr Teper requests that the Authority
re-considers the exercise of its discretion and to no longer
pursue this PCN. The Appellant has a permit to park in this bay
and was on holiday from late August until returning in mid/late
September 2024."
I note that the Authority has not responded to my adjournment
notice.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked
in a suspended bay when in St Thomas Square on 17 September 2024
at 10:30am.
The Appellant's case is that the suspension was not on display
when her vehicle was towed to the bay on 22 August 2024, that
she went on holiday on 28 August and returned on Tuesday, 10
September 2024. She discovered the PCN on Tuesday, 17 September
2024, the suspension notice having been erected five days before
on Thursday, 12 September 2024. It follows that even if she had
checked her vehicle on the 10 or 11 September, she would not
have been aware of the suspension.
In the case of Nottingham City Council, R (on the application
of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) it was
held by Mrs Justice Lang DBE that:
“38. It is well-established that a failure to comply with the
regulation 18 duty as to signage
is a proper ground on which an adjudicator may allow an appeal
against the issue of a
penalty charge notice on the ground that the alleged
contravention of the relevant
traffic regulation order did not occur. (See R (London Borough
of Camden) v. The
Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at
[50] – [51]).”
The regulation 18 duty must as a matter of law refer not only to
whether the signs are adequate by reason of their size, number
and visibility, but also (especially in the case of temporary
restrictions) that they are placed far enough in advance of a
restriction coming into force that motorists have an adequate
amount of time to become aware of the restrictions.
If this were not the case, an Authority could install suspension
signs adjacent to a permit bay with no notice at all, and then
issue PCNs to all vehicles parked in the bay, and then tow them
away 15 minutes later. In my judgment this would not be right
and cannot have been what the legislature intended when it used
the word “adequate”.
Further, the decision of Adjudicator Houghton in case 2180194309
records as follows:
“The Council’s evidence appears to show that 10 signs were
erected in or near this road on the 16th. However there seems to
me to be no clear evidence to show that the particular sign
relied on was one of them , nor is there any evidence ( such as
a photograph) to show the sign remained place shortly before the
vehicle was parked. On balance I prefer the evidence of the
Appellant and find that the sign was not in place at the time of
parking.
The Appellant has understandably assumed that if this is so no
contravention can occur and this appears to be accepted by the
Council. Although I share this view I have to note that the law
is perhaps not so clear cut. In a recent decision of the Court
of Appeal (Camden LBC v Humphreys [2017] EWCA Civ 24) a similar
issue fell to be decided in the case of a motorcyclist who left
his motorcycle in an unsuspended bay which was subsequently
suspended incurring a PCN. The motorist succeeded in a |Judicial
review hearing in the High Court at which the Council
unaccountably did not appear. The Council subsequently appealed
to the Court of Appeal. They failed, but purely on the basis
that they were too late and should have made their submissions
to the High Court at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal,
however did express a provisional view as to what the law was in
this type of situation. The majority view was that the Council
is only required to prove that the bay was suspended and that
the vehicle was parked within it for a contravention to occur.
The view of the remaining Lord Justice of Appeal was that some
form of notice of the suspension would be required. The Court
emphasised that the views expressed were only provisional
pending the law being fully argued in some subsequent case; and
therefore technically the views expressed are not binding on me.
With great respect I agree with the minority view; it seems to
me a principle of all parking law that the motorist should have
some notice of a restriction or prohibition when deciding
whether to park.
As I am not satisfied adequate notice of the suspension was
given the Appeal is allowed.”
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find as
follows:
First, I find that the Appellant's vehicle was already parked at
the location as seen in the CEO's photo shots on 12 September
2024, when the suspension notice was erected.
Second, I find that the Authority has not produced any evidence,
such as the terms and conditions that her permit was granted to
her, which provides any guidance as to how often a motorist must
check the bay where the car is located, whether it is broken
down or not.
Third, I find that whilst the Authority erected the suspension
notice on Thursday, 12 September this only allowed a motorist 5
days warning of the upcoming suspension on Tuesday, 17 September
2024 with a weekend in between.
Fourth, applying the test of adequacy at paragraph 38 of the
Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane
Adjudicator & Ors I find, as a fact, that a 5 day warning of a
suspension is inadequate in the circumstances of this particular
case.
Fifth, I find that a suspension notice should be erected as soon
as an Authority becomes aware of the need to suspend a
particular bay and that it must erect the signs early enough to
give adequate notice of the suspension.
Sixth, I find that resident/motorists are entitled to adequate
notice to enable them to relocate their vehicle, whether it be
to another permit bay or to a garage.
Seventh, the reason this bay was suspended was due to 'Highway
maintenance', however, there is no evidence as to when the
Authority became aware of the requirement to suspend this bay or
how urgent the highway maintenance was.
Eighth, as stated above I find a 5 day notice, which included a
weekend in between, is inadequate to warn a motorist of an
upcoming suspension.
In light of the above, I find that this contravention cannot be
upheld because I find it has not been proved by the Authority,
with whom the burden rests.
The Appellant, however, should be aware that if the Authority
had produced evidence in relation to how often a permit holder
or otherwise is obliged to check the status of where their
vehicle is parked, and especially in relation to suspensions,
the decision in this case might not have been the same.
The appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 86096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham towed car while on holiday
DIR By: Roberts
Date: August 18, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all great advice.
To answer some of your quetions. No I did not make any
arrangement to care for my car while I was away. And attached is
my e-permit at that time and the terms and confition.
#Post#: 86110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham towed car while on holiday
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 18, 2025, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The question was:
[i]Are there any arrangements you could have made to check on
and move your car.[/I]
The permit terms just say they can suspend parking places not
any duty to check.
#Post#: 86119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham towed car while on holiday
DIR By: Roberts
Date: August 18, 2025, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, there’s no one I could have ask to check and move my car.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page