Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newham PCN & Towing
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Lexykay
Hello,

Have tried to find an exact case as mine but could not. Please help me address how to go about appealing this unfair PCN and towing away of my car.

I parked in a spot that is placed between a standard paid parking sign and a disabled parking sign. The "DISABLED" that is normally written beside a disabled parking spot is completely faded, so I never saw it.

Paid for parking in line with the standard paid parking signage. Got back after my engagement to find that my car has been towed away.

I have attached the original PCN images here:Original PCN Images (my car is red)

Also attached images I went back to take myself with a white car parked in the same spot: Investigative Images. I have included explanations in the images.

Had to pay £265 to get my car released from the impound lot. £200 for impound and £65 PCN. Will I be able to claim the full £265 on appeal? I have 21 days left to appeal.

Thanks for your anticipated assistance.
Tarantula
Could do with a google street view and a picture of the PCN.

There should be a double-white dashed line separating the two types of bay. I can't see that in the picture. If that is missing you are entitled to consult the sign that you did and are not required to traipse around looking at various signs and guessing which applies.
Lexykay
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 20:27) *
Could do with a google street view and a picture of the PCN.

There should be a double-white dashed line separating the two types of bay. I can't see that in the picture. If that is missing you are entitled to consult the sign that you did and are not required to traipse around looking at various signs and guessing which applies.



Many thanks.
Please see Google Street View: Google Street View

PCN: PCN

The double lines (and "DISABLED" road marking) can be seen faintly in the Google Street View, which was probably captured much earlier in the year. However, they are no longer visible right now, just as the disabled marking.
Incandescent
I see no double-dashed bay separator here which is essential to show the boundary between the two sets of bays. The appalling state of the carriageway lines is laughable`. The good news, (if there is any), is it is a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals on this, as you have paid all there is to pay and are likely to get all of it back. I can't see you losing based on the road markings and the signs. If they had wanted to eliminate all doubt, the two signs could have been placed side by side on a single pole positioned at the dividing point, with each sign having an arrow to indicate applicability.
stamfordman
There is a disabled parking sign but it's not that obvious compared with the other parking sign. But it is there as you can see it in one of the council pics I think - is there no pic of the sign in their pics? As said nothing to lose now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5047978,0.0...6384!8i8192

Lexykay
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:19) *
I see no double-dashed bay separator here which is essential to show the boundary between the two sets of bays. The appalling state of the carriageway lines is laughable`. The good news, (if there is any), is it is a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals on this, as you have paid all there is to pay and are likely to get all of it back. I can't see you losing based on the road markings and the signs. If they had wanted to eliminate all doubt, the two signs could have been placed side by side on a single pole positioned at the dividing point, with each sign having an arrow to indicate applicability.


Thanks. I guess this is the main line of argument.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:42) *
There is a disabled parking sign but it's not that obvious compared with the other parking sign. But it is there as you can see it in one of the council pics I think - is there no pic of the sign in their pics? As said nothing to lose now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5047978,0.0...6384!8i8192


Cheers.
There is no argument that the disabled parking sign is there. But it is located inside the boundary of another bay on one side of where I parked. A standard paid parking sign is in the bay on the other side of where I parked. I guess the real argument is the absence of the double dashed line to indicate different bays.
hcandersen
deleted.

OP, what does the photo evidence show?

Your car was parked adjacent to L53C.

GSV shows that you were parked in a disabled bay which is one of two, the second being ahead of your car. From where the driver would have stood having exited the car and looking towards the footway they would or should have seen a traffic sign to their left and another to their right, the latter displaying a BB icon and both appearing to be equidistant and IMO equally visible.

What would an adjudicator make of the driver's efforts to be reasonably diligent in seeing what restrictions applied?

I don't know, but I am confident that just referring to obscure double-dash lines won't be a get-out-of-jail argument because the issue is more complex i.e. why did the driver not see the BB traffic sign? If an adjudicator believes they should, then leaving the bay and not seeing end bay markings is not central to the argument.

Incandescent
QUOTE (Lexykay @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:54) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:19) *
I see no double-dashed bay separator here which is essential to show the boundary between the two sets of bays. The appalling state of the carriageway lines is laughable`. The good news, (if there is any), is it is a total no-brainer to take them all the way to London Tribunals on this, as you have paid all there is to pay and are likely to get all of it back. I can't see you losing based on the road markings and the signs. If they had wanted to eliminate all doubt, the two signs could have been placed side by side on a single pole positioned at the dividing point, with each sign having an arrow to indicate applicability.


Thanks. I guess this is the main line of argument.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:42) *
There is a disabled parking sign but it's not that obvious compared with the other parking sign. But it is there as you can see it in one of the council pics I think - is there no pic of the sign in their pics? As said nothing to lose now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5047978,0.0...6384!8i8192


Cheers.
There is no argument that the disabled parking sign is there. But it is located inside the boundary of another bay on one side of where I parked. A standard paid parking sign is in the bay on the other side of where I parked. I guess the real argument is the absence of the double dashed line to indicate different bays.

OK, you've got the main points to put in your representations to the council. If they refuse them, register an appeal at London Tribunals with the same argument and also any extra evidence to refute their refusal letter. I would also put in that the tow was disproportionate to the offence, a PCN alone would have sufficed.
cp8759
QUOTE (Lexykay @ Thu, 12 May 2022 - 23:54) *
I guess the real argument is the absence of the double dashed line to indicate different bays.

This is the key issue, if you look on the google streetview images here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5047978,0.0...6384!8i8192 there are double dashed lines but they're quite worn, and that images is from April 2021.

What you really need is the council photos, or go and get new photos of your own (but get the council photos in any event). If the council cannot show that the lines are substantially compliant, they cannot win.
hcandersen
If the driver didn't need to exit the BB area - which they wouldn't have needed to if they'd seen the BB traffic sign - then IMO the presence or otherwise of the lines between P&D and disabled is not relevant.

They'll need to bring them into play by saying that this is the traffic sign which they saw, whether because they passed it on their approach or whatever.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 13 May 2022 - 13:59) *
If the driver didn't need to exit the BB area - which they wouldn't have needed to if they'd seen the BB traffic sign - then IMO the presence or otherwise of the lines between P&D and disabled is not relevant.

Sorry this makes no sense to me. If the driver got out, saw the P&D sign, and there were no double-dashed lines altering them to the fact that that sign relates to a different bay, the BB sign is irrelevant.

In fact looking at this pictures



I think we have enough for a challenge already:

------------------

Dear London Borough of Newham,

I challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. I parked my vehicle in a bay and paid for parking in accordance with the instructions on the nearest paid parking regulatory plate, which was adjacent to the vehicle parked behind mine. There was no visible "disabled" legend on the road, and I saw no double-dashed lines between the bays indicating the two bays were subject to different restrictions.

In light of this the alleged contravention did not occur, it follow that both the penalty charge and the towing charges must now be refunded.

Yours faithfully,

---------------------------

As an aside, were you left out of pocket due to the car being tower, for example taxi fares, public transport tickets and so on?
hcandersen
Sorry this makes no sense to me. If the driver got out, saw the P&D sign, and there were no double-dashed lines altering them to the fact that that sign relates to a different bay, the BB sign is irrelevant.

The OP was in a disabled bay.

On exiting their car, the traffic signs for both BB parking amd P&D were equidistant.

So, why did they go to the latter and not see the former? They need to suggest why.

Otherwise, they were in a disabled bay, should have seen the clear BB parking sign and had no reason to go or look elsewhere, consequently the non-existence of dashed lines to indicate the boundary between two restrictions when they shouldn't even have been concerned with the P&D is immaterial IMO.

'I didn't know the P&D didn't apply' only carries weight if an adjudicator believes that a reasonably diligent driver even had a reason to look other than at the clear BB sign.
stamfordman
There are actually two disabled bays there and the OP was in the one that does not have the sign directly by it. These bays were separated by a gap with the shared use bay. Case can be made that only one disabled bay apparent when the worn marking and sign taken together.

Newham won't accept so this is one for the tribunal.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.50479,0.017...6384!8i8192

hcandersen
I can see that I'm ploughing a lone furrow, but none the less....

The BB and P&D signs were equidistant from the driver; neither sign was in the bay in which the driver parked, therefore making the point that the BB wasn't is no different to making the same point about the P&D surely.

If the driver walked around the front of their car the BB sign would have been straight ahead in clear view, therefore no reason on earth to go 5m to their left to find another sign.

I don't know whether the driver saw and ignored or didn't see, perhaps they went to the boot, in which case the P&D comes more into play. But they should not ignore the objective facts, they need to face them and offer a plausible reason why they did not see the BB sign which has nothing to do in the first instance with dodgy dashes.
Incandescent
But the plain fact remains that with two signs close together like this, there needs to be a double-dashed divider to mark the boundary between the two sets of restrictions. There isn't. If the council had maintained their bay markings the OP would have no case at all, but they haven't, yet continue to enforce as the money is so good.
stamfordman
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 13 May 2022 - 21:50) *
The BB and P&D signs were equidistant from the driver; neither sign was in the bay in which the driver parked, therefore making the point that the BB wasn't is no different to making the same point about the P&D surely.


The shared use sign is much bigger and the lack of road markings can surely mean that at least it is not certain the OP was in the left hand of two disabled bays. We can only firmly deduce this from google maps history.

Have you got anything better to put to the tribunal?
hcandersen
The shared use sign is much bigger and the lack of road markings can surely mean that at least it is not certain the OP was in the left hand of two disabled bays. We can only firmly deduce this from google maps history.

The OP's car can be pinpointed with precision, they parked in the first of two disabled bays with the traffic sign being situated within the parking place and located 'in' the second bay. There is an intra-parking place dividing line as required.

Why did the driver not see the traffic sign? No idea because no reason has been offered by the OP.

Should the driver have noticed the BB sign? An adjudicator might find as such, the result of which could be that they would find that the driver should have investigated its provisions which, by virtue of there being a prescribed intra-place marking, means its provisions applied to the OP's location and furthermore no other restriction could apply. They should have looked, read, returned and moved.

Dodgy dashes be damned, they wouldn't enter into it because the driver had no need to traipse the street looking for a sign they liked as opposed to one they didn't.....if they saw or it is found should have seen this sign.

To repeat what I've posted consistently: dodgy dashes have a part in an argument, but only one which explains or at least touches on why the applicable sign was not seen and acted upon. If the alpha and omega of any reps/appeal is your dashed lines are naff then (apart from the fact that an adjudicator might find that they were substantially compliant to a reasonably diligent driver anyway) they leave themselves open to the question I've posed.
cp8759
Hcandersen you're talking nonsense. In the absence of double dashed lines, even if the driver saw both signs, the council has still failed to comply with LATOR 18.
Lexykay
Many thanks for all the comments. Very helpful in clarifying things further.

The direction of my destination was towards the back of my car (i.e. towards the P&D sign). I did not see the BB sign at all as it was not within the bay I parked in and there were no other indicators that the bay is a disabled bay (e.g. "DISABLED" marking on the road and double dashed lines).

Surely it is incumbent upon the council to leave no one in doubt as this BB bay has, unless they are trying to be dodgy. I wouldn't have paid for parking if I was trying to be dodgy. Other P&D spaces were available on the day as well. I only chose this bay because of proximity to my destination.

One can argue that the P&D sign is also not within the bay I parked in. But on the same road, one P&D sign serves 4+ bays. So, I had no reason to doubt that the bay was for paid parking since other indicators that it is a BB bay are missing!

Meanwhile, I had to take Uber to get documents from my house and another to get to the impound yard before they closed. I would really like to claim these

Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 13 May 2022 - 18:20) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 13 May 2022 - 13:59) *
If the driver didn't need to exit the BB area - which they wouldn't have needed to if they'd seen the BB traffic sign - then IMO the presence or otherwise of the lines between P&D and disabled is not relevant.

Sorry this makes no sense to me. If the driver got out, saw the P&D sign, and there were no double-dashed lines altering them to the fact that that sign relates to a different bay, the BB sign is irrelevant.

In fact looking at this pictures



I think we have enough for a challenge already:

------------------

Dear London Borough of Newham,

I challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. I parked my vehicle in a bay and paid for parking in accordance with the instructions on the nearest paid parking regulatory plate, which was adjacent to the vehicle parked behind mine. There was no visible "disabled" legend on the road, and I saw no double-dashed lines between the bays indicating the two bays were subject to different restrictions.

In light of this the alleged contravention did not occur, it follow that both the penalty charge and the towing charges must now be refunded.

Yours faithfully,

---------------------------

As an aside, were you left out of pocket due to the car being tower, for example taxi fares, public transport tickets and so on?



The images of the rear of the car are more relevant here. If you check them out, the separation line at the back is completely invisible from the PCN images as they are very faint/faded - just like the supposed "DISABLED" road marking.

---------------------------

Yes, I had to take Uber home and then to the impound yard because they were going to close within 2 hours of me discovering what happened.
Lexykay
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 13 May 2022 - 13:59) *
If the driver didn't need to exit the BB area - which they wouldn't have needed to if they'd seen the BB traffic sign - then IMO the presence or otherwise of the lines between P&D and disabled is not relevant.

They'll need to bring them into play by saying that this is the traffic sign which they saw, whether because they passed it on their approach or whatever.


Your second paragraph explains what happened. I only saw the P&D sign as it was the one I passed on approaching the spot.

Combine the fact that it was so close to the bay I parked in, and there was neither a visible double dashed line nor a "DISABLED" marking on the road side, then you would see why I did not see it as a BB spot. Every angle of scrutiny makes this look like a deliberate entrapment by the council.

While sticking to objective arguments, I'd like to add that the people I spoke to on the site explained that a lot of unsuspecting drivers get caught out by this particular spot.
Gert
The complete absence of a DISABLED road marking and terminal lines to indicate the separation of the pay and display bay from the disabled bay should be enough to win this.

Hopefully the council to voluntarily stump up a refund, of if necessary the Tribunal to order it.

Lines are below substantially compliant standard. No disabled sign alongside the marked bay space so the driver can't be faulted for thinking where they parked was part of the pay and display bay IMHO.
hcandersen

The complete absence of a DISABLED road marking and terminal lines to indicate the separation of the pay and display bay from the disabled bay should be enough to win this.

Why?

The BB restriction is 24/7 and in such cases the marking may be dispensed with.

You don't get to the P&D if the observant driver sees a BB traffic sign which covers where they're parked!

This and related arguments are all predicated on the driver correctly and forgivably going to the P&D sign as if it was the only game in town.

GSV shows the contrary.

It also shows that the 'disabled' bay doesn't meet the minimum width standard and it is therefore for the authority to establish that they are exempted from this requirement by virtue of 'the nature of traffic using the road, the overall width of the carriageway is insufficient to accommodate a bay of that width.'.
Tarantula
If they see the P&D sign (e.g. on approach) then having inspected it they have no reason to look for other signs.

It would be good if in the representations/appeal the driver made clear that they saw the P&D sign and having seen it felt that was sufficient. It would also help if they left in that direction or crossed the road.
cp8759
I would go with what I drafted. At the end of the day it's for the council to show that a contravention occurred, it's not up to the motorist to show that it didn't. If they want to cite the existence of double dashed lines (or the remnants thereof), the "disabled" marking on the road or whatever else, let them bring it up.

Keep the Uber receipts (presumably you can take screenshots from the app), if the contravention didn't occur then you can claim for tortious interference with goods.
Lexykay
Having submitted an appeal in line with cp8759's draft, the council has sent a Notice of Rejection letter. Please see pages 1 & 2 through these links:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m1ku4bn7bo495hy/n...%20pg1.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mhe2ub5v4nrhc5t/n...%20pg2.jpg?dl=0

They didn't even bother to address the point I made that the double dashed lines were invisible both in the CEO's photos and in real life.

Guess it's the London Tribunals next.

Please share any tips and tricks relating to going to the tribunals. Never done this before.

Thanks.
Tarantula
Actually, they seem to have turned your representations on their head. cp8759's draft said "I saw no double-dashed..." and they have changed this to "You saw double-dashed...".

Do you have hard-copy of what you sent to make sure there was no slip-up that omitted the key "no"? If there was no error, that would appear to be a clear failure to consider.
Lexykay
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Fri, 27 May 2022 - 16:00) *
Actually, they seem to have turned your representations on their head. cp8759's draft said "I saw no double-dashed..." and they have changed this to "You saw double-dashed...".

Do you have hard-copy of what you sent to make sure there was no slip-up that omitted the key "no"? If there was no error, that would appear to be a clear failure to consider.


Hi,

This is a copy and paste of what was sent:

I challenge liability on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. I parked my
vehicle in a bay and paid for parking in accordance with the instructions on the nearest paid
parking regulatory plate, which was adjacent to the vehicle parked behind mine.
There was no visible "DISABLED" legend on the road, and I saw no double-dashed lines
between the bays indicating the two bays were subject to different restrictions.
Furthermore, I did not see the disabled signage as it was not within the bay I parked in, and
other necessary signages to indicate that the bay operated under disabled restriction were
not visible.
In light of this, the alleged contravention did not occur It follows that both the penalty charge
and the towing charges must now be refunded. I would like to add that if these are not
refunded, further expenses incurred including claims for tortious interference with goods will
be pursued.
Yours faithfully

cp8759
Go to https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and file an appeal with "I rely on my formal representations".

Would you like me to represent you at the hearing?
Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 27 May 2022 - 23:37) *
Go to https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and file an appeal with "I rely on my formal representations".

Would you like me to represent you at the hearing?


I would absolutely love to have you represent me at the hearing, with many thanks!
cp8759
Ask for a personal hearing and let us know once you have a hearing date and time please.
Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 28 May 2022 - 00:54) *
Ask for a personal hearing and let us know once you have a hearing date and time please.

Hi cp8759,

They asked this question: Do you have a legal representative who will conduct the appeal on your behalf?

Would be acting as a legal representative or I should select NO?

Thanks

QUOTE (Lexykay @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 13:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 28 May 2022 - 00:54) *
Ask for a personal hearing and let us know once you have a hearing date and time please.

Hi cp8759,

They asked this question: Do you have a legal representative who will conduct the appeal on your behalf?

Would be acting as a legal representative or I should select NO?

Thanks


And also, I am assuming that the defence is along the lines: The contravention did not occur, instead of procedural impropriety.

Thanks
cp8759
QUOTE (Lexykay @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 13:48) *
Would be acting as a legal representative or I should select NO?

Select NO, we can always change this later on

QUOTE (Lexykay @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 13:48) *
And also, I am assuming that the defence is along the lines: The contravention did not occur, instead of procedural impropriety.

If you're talking about the tick-box on the website, yes that's the right one.
Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (Lexykay @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 13:48) *
Would be acting as a legal representative or I should select NO?

Select NO, we can always change this later on

QUOTE (Lexykay @ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 - 13:48) *
And also, I am assuming that the defence is along the lines: The contravention did not occur, instead of procedural impropriety.

If you're talking about the tick-box on the website, yes that's the right one.

Gotcha, Thanks
Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 28 May 2022 - 00:54) *
Ask for a personal hearing and let us know once you have a hearing date and time please.


Hi,

I've heard from London Tribunals:

The hearing will take place on: 13th July 2022 at 11:00 at London Tribunals, Chancery Exchange,
Ground Floor North, 10 Furnival Street, LONDON, EC4A 1AB

See letter here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1pv8vnjs7v4b02/l...letter.jpg?dl=0
cp8759
Let us know as soon as the council uploads its evidence pack. You should check the tribunal portal at least once a week; in the last 10 days before the hearing, check every day. Once they upload their evidence pack, drop me a PM please.
Lexykay
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 16 Jun 2022 - 16:42) *
Let us know as soon as the council uploads its evidence pack. You should check the tribunal portal at least once a week; in the last 10 days before the hearing, check every day. Once they upload their evidence pack, drop me a PM please.

Been checking every week, nothing uploaded from the Council. I will check everyday now that the hearing is 10 days away. Will drop you a PM if anything pops up.
Thanks.
Lexykay
QUOTE (Lexykay @ Sun, 3 Jul 2022 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 16 Jun 2022 - 16:42) *
Let us know as soon as the council uploads its evidence pack. You should check the tribunal portal at least once a week; in the last 10 days before the hearing, check every day. Once they upload their evidence pack, drop me a PM please.

Been checking every week, nothing uploaded from the Council. I will check everyday now that the hearing is 10 days away. Will drop you a PM if anything pops up.
Thanks.

Great News!!!

The council has made a no contest submission! I don't need to attend the hearing anymore.

Please find the 'Do Not Contest' form here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0q1lkxxfeju8kon/n...20form.jpg?dl=0

The Tribunal called to inform me that the council will make contact with me regarding next steps. I wonder how I can claim the additional expenses.

Many thanks to you all for giving me the extra courage to go all the way.
stamfordman
That's great news - I thought this was a strong case and Newham obviously has agreed as it wouldn't give in easily on a tow case.

You'll be getting all the cash back.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.