Source: http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t68584.html
Timestamp: 2019-11-15 10:09:05
Document Index: 412680243

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

FightBack Forums > Code 27 - DK PCN
Full Version: Code 27 - DK PCN
Tue, 21 Feb 2012 - 17:13
I'm new here and in need of some assistance.
My wife parked the car one night and we came down the next day to go out in it as a family and found that there was no car where we had left it. After walking up and down the road trying to locate it, it quickly became apparent that it had been taken or even stolen.
However, it transpires that in fact the car had been removed by the Council due to the fact that we had apparently breached code 27.
I've been reading a lot of similar cases on this forum but would like to know how to respond in my representation against the vehicle being removed.
These were all taken as evidence by the removal firm working for the council. - Note the differing times on the photos.
They definitely show that the tyre is not crossing the part of the DK which is level with the road - only the front bumper. There is also, I would suggest, enough room in front of the car for a wheelchair to pass between it and the car in front - so I'm not sure if we were actually obstructing the DK anyway...but I'm not sure of the exact definition.
Should this DK have a line?
Here are the scans of the PCN.
So you maybe get a better idea of the surroundings (in the daytime) here's a couple of Google map grabs:-
The DK in question can be seen in the first of the Google maps images but it has recently been re-tarmaced and enlarged slightly since this photo. The DK is situated on an island between the main road (on the far right of the second Google image) and the section of road (similar to a kind of lay by) where local residents park their cars. We've parked here for a good number of years and people park over or very near this DK every day as there's not much space, due to the number of cars. You can even see that someone has actually parked across it on the google images!
Tue, 21 Feb 2012 - 22:41
The car is overlapping the dropped part by such a small amount it might be de minimis but then it is a very narrow DK. How wide is it now?
There is no DK on the other side of the road? Who do the council believe you are likely to obstruct? Wheelchair and pram users are already committed to a small step on the other side of the road, although I suspect most could get up the remaining part of the DK where you are parked. I don't know if this could be developed into an argument.
You say there is an established custom and practice of parking there. The council might have an obligation to notify residents of the enforcement regime commencing, although this is London...
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 09:48
I'm not sure if the new DK is much bigger but it's been recently re-tarmaced. The Google Map image is a bit out of date as I checked this junction again this morning and there are now DKs on the corners of the T Junction opposite.
Does this affect my position?
Do I realistically have a case and if so how is it worth pursuing?
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 10:00
Always appeal a council towing. What do you have to lose ?
Have you got the car back yet ? If so, what have you paid and what forms were you given ?
If you still have to collect it, pay what's asked and take what you're given. Don't ask if there's anything else because they may forget a critical form.
Bogsy and HCA are both very good in these situations
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 11:39
That's good to know, and I will definitely be appealing.
I was given the following documents when paying (the day after towing):-
That's all the paperwork I was given. I've logged onto the web address given on the back of the PCN which contains only the info on the front of the PCN plus some photos of which I've already uploaded the ones that show the position of the car - the others are of the small scratches in paint etc - which I assume they take for legal reasons when removing a vehicle.
Should I have had any more paperwork?
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 13:54
What imaginative parents the receiving officer had, giving him the name, "003".
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 14:07
QUOTE (Bagshot @ Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 13:54)
"003" met an unfortunate end in Siberia some 27 years ago. Somebody should tell "M".
Anyway did you get any appeal forms at the pound?
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 14:18
"Should I have had any more paperwork?"
Yes you should have received an appeal form.
This is a mistake in their procedure that has won a number of cases. It's the reason you shouldn't ask if there's anything else.
Wed, 22 Feb 2012 - 14:37
My apologies I completely forgot about the appeal form. I was given one - here it is:-
Thu, 23 Feb 2012 - 13:06
So how should I put the appeal?
I personally think there is room for the DK to be accessed for use between the cars. Is that my best defense?
Is the car in a position that contravenes code 27?
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 - 17:08
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 - 00:30
QUOTE (code27 @ Thu, 23 Feb 2012 - 13:06)
Well as advised above already, a slight overhang could be argued as 'de minimis' (you could say it's a mere trifle and not even worthy of a PCN let alone towing away!). Do not talk about whether there's room for the dk to be accessed - it's more about stating that you were not adjacent to a dk anyway, not only was it de minimis but this isn't even a dk that has a corresponding one on the opposite side (marvin28's post above).
But you also need to read & learn from a few other towing threads, search back a few pages for relevant headings and read what others have used as their appeal wording in Council tow cases. There's the fact that towing is wholly disproportionate in this instance (as per Caroline Sheppard, Chief Parking Adjudicator, who you'll find quoted on other towing threads). And that to force you to pay the PCN up front, when it clearly has an appeal period, is a procedural impropriety.
Here's just one thread where Bogsy has just posted a suggested part for an appeal on that basis:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68740
Read a few other Council tow threads and then draft your own appeal for others to comment on. You have the extra points about the 'de minimis' challenge and the dropped kerb itself. You can find more infor again on other threads if you search for those keywords or just go back a few pages and read relevant threads.
Sun, 11 Mar 2012 - 17:45
Thanks for the input, it's much appreciated. I've drafted my response based on Bogsy's idea. I'm not sure how to add the "de minimis" content, where it should go in relation to this text, or whether it will detract from this altogether. Thought's please.
Also, I've taken a photos of other cars parked across this dk - it's very common as it's a place people park day in, day out. I have noticed that the dk has a school patrol sign attaached to the lamp post next to it. Does this affect any arguments?
I really need to get my response in soon so any help would be appreciated, otherwise I think I'll go with the below.
I would like to provide representations against the removal of my vehicle on the **/**/12 from *******, *** as I believe there has been a procedural impropiety on the part of the enforcement authority.
Firstly, I bring to your attention that the council had no lawful right to insist I paid the penalty charge as a condition for the release of my vehicle. I am informed that the council consider their right to do so is provided under s.101A RTRA 1984. I contend that s.101A is only applicable when the vehicle being recovered is one that had been perceived by the council to have the appearance of being abandoned and the statutory requirements enabling its ultimate disposal have been satisfied. Evidence of this is found under regulation 18 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008 and when one considers that the precursor to s.101A was s.101(4) RTRA 1984 then further evidence is found under regulation 16 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986. Both the aforementioned regulations fall under a “Part” that concerns the recovery and disposal of supposedly abandoned vehicles. I believe the correct charges to apply were those enabled under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984. Clear indication of this can be found under paragraph 1(1)(b) within Schedule 9 TMA 2004. The charges to be paid under s.102(2A) do not include the penalty charge.
I further contend that the council had no lawful right to retain my vehicle until I paid the removal charges either. The right to retain a vehicle until the charges are paid is only applicable to councils not operating civil parking enforcement. This is clearly indicated under s.102(4) RTRA 1984. Upon investigation it appears that the right to retain a vehicle until the removal charges are paid has never existed where a council operates decriminalised parking enforcement. In support of this claim I bring to your attention that s.68 RTA 1991 inserted paragraph (d) into subsection 102(2) RTRA 1984 but s.102(4) was not amended to include the new paragraph (d). Withholding the right to retain a vehicle from those councils operating under decriminalised powers does seem appropriate for what is after all a civil matter, and is particularly fitting when one acknowledges that the removal charges are not punitive and form no part of any imposed civil penalty. When considering this appeal it is important to acknowledge that there is no provision contained within s.101A RTRA 1984 that allows a council to “retain” a vehicle until the relevant charges are paid. Section 101A is all about providing the owner with power. This being the power to prevent the pending disposal by paying the relevant charges and removing the vehicle within the prescribed period or where disposal has taken place, with the power to seek those proceeds of sale that exceeded the relevant charges. A council operating CPE only has a statutory right to remove and to dispose; it has no statutory right to retain a vehicle until all charges are paid as is made evident under s.102 RTRA 1984.
It is a truth that the appeal process provided under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 is made pursuant to s.101B RTRA 1984 and therefore it is not relevant to those vehicles subject to charges imposed under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984. Put simply, it does not apply to vehicles that were not considered to be abandoned. The most crucial and significant truth however, is that the appeal process provided under Part 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 has no relationship with civil enforcement under the TMA 2004. It is important to recognise that the application of Part 4 is not dependent on a penalty charge being payable as the “relevant charges” under s.101A RTRA 1984 need not include a penalty charge. Where civil enforcement occurs then it is the regulations made pursuant to s.80 TMA 2004 that regulate the appropriate appeal process. It is Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 that satisfies s.80(1)(a), while Part 3 satisfies s.80(1)(b). As my vehicle was not immobilised, the correct appeal process for the council to apply was that under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. The TMA 2004 does not allow for any other possibility. As is made evident by s.80 TMA 2004, it was never intended for the regulations made pursuant to s.101B to be used as the basis for appeals against penalty charges served under the TMA 2004. Had the council correctly applied s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 and not forced payment of the penalty charge, then I would have been able to access the Part 2 appeal process prescribed under s.80 TMA 2004.
It is my understanding that in a CPE area the correct procedure in regard to a removed vehicle that a council does not perceive to be abandoned, is to allow a person to pay or appeal against the penalty charge in full accordance with those provisions of the TMA 2004 that correlate with the service of a regulation 9 PCN. As for any removal or storage charges then a council is by virtue of s.102(2A) entitled to ask for these to be paid when the vehicle is collected but if a person declines then a council must return the vehicle and decide whether to recover their removal charges in accordance with s.102(3) RTRA 1984. Where the removal charges are paid and an appellant’s appeal against the penalty charge is subsequently allowed then the adjudicator can direct a council to refund the removal charges in addition to cancelling the penalty charge.
Sun, 11 Mar 2012 - 19:48
What's missing from your account and what is necessary are proper photos.
Given that the start point, IMO, for all reps is whether the contravention occurred and that the contravention relies on the purpose for which a dropped kerb was installed, then we need to see photos as these often give a clue. The photos must show as a minimum the kerb and the opposite sides of the road
You only have 28 days in which to submit reps - but from when?
Piecing your account together, you recovered your veh the day after the tow and although you've deleted dates from the PCN, you did state that the pics were taken by the towing operatives - and they're dated 16th. So perhaps day 1 was 17th Feb which gives 15 March as day 28.
Whatever else, you must submit your reps by this date.
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 - 13:51
I've uploaded photo's that I took this morning from the relevant spot which you can see below.
I hope these give a clearer view of where the dks are plus note the school signage.
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 - 17:15
That is NOT a safe place to cross a road. The only safe way to cross the road there is when the school crossing patrol is on duty. That dropped kerb at other times is an invitation to children from the school and others, to cross the road at that point which should be discouraged. At times when the patrol is not in operation, I would have said that you have a moral duty to block it to force people to find somewhere safer to cross. Tow away is totally over the top at that time of day.
Mon, 12 Mar 2012 - 19:08
Thanks Bagshot,
I appreciate your comments. The more rediculous thing about that school patrol sign is that at present there is NO school patrol on this part of the street.
I'm wondering if this should form part of my appeal too?
The timing is crazy of the tow, as you state. Half past eight at night on a Thursday...but I imagine the towers don't care about what time it was...
I really need to get my appeal finished now as time has pretty much run out...any more comments about the layout of the DKs...HCA?...Bogsy?
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 08:00
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 09:15
You have until 15th to submit your reps; you're in danger of trying to construct the best appeal which, by virtue of being out of time, will be disregarded.
DKs are always difficult to defend, so it's a case of putting what you have in the best context.
I suggest you make your reps on the basis of what you have, but stress:
Contravention did not occur - the location and structure of this lowered kerb and associated tarmac and the location of other lowered kerbs in the vicinity make it clear that the purpose of this lowered kerb does not meet any of the statutory tests which prove the contravention. Namely:
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;
Given that this location sits in the mouth of a road junction on the opposite side of the carriageway, it is inconceivable that the purpose of installing it was to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway as there would be no beneficial purpose in crossing at such an exposed and dangerous position.
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
If the council consider that the purpose of this lowered footway satisfies one or more of the statutory tests, then you require it to provide evidence to this effect. However, if it fails to and wishes to rely on an inferred purpose then IMO it also allows others, including an adj, to infer purpose.
It would be useful to provide a clearer context e.g. what exactly is the land on which it sits, all pics have too narrow a field. Is it a central reservation (it has a carriageway on either side)?
I don't need an answer, just amend your reps if necessary to make this clear.
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 14:02
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate that there's not much time left, which is why I'm trying to get any last guidance before entering my appeal.
The DK is on a kind of central reservation between the main road and a kind of lay by which links residential streets where people park there cars if the have no driveway.
I noticed there is a white transit van parked directly across it today. This has been given a ticket but not towed away...I'm assuming because the can is too large to tow? This does seem inconsistent on the part of he council though, as ours was supposedly ticketed and towed within half an hour...is this worth mentioning?
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 16:22
I would stick with the references to statutory provisions and that it was disproportionate to tow your vehicle. Tease from the council why in their opinion it was proportionate to tow your vehicle (and request their policy in the matter with their rejection) given that no-one would have been impeded. When you get their response, then you could consider introducing your points regarding their uneven approach. I always think this point is a better counter-punch than lead.
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 17:01
OK, will hold fire until I get a response. Thanks HCA.
Tue, 13 Mar 2012 - 22:25
Right how's this:
I would like to provide representations against the removal of my vehicle on the **/**/** from ****** ****, *** as I believe there has been a procedural impropiety on the part of the enforcement authority.
I believe that the Code 27 contravention did not occur. The location and structure of this lowered kerb and associated tarmac and the location of other lowered kerbs in the vicinity make it clear that the purpose of this lowered kerb does not meet any of the statutory tests which prove the contravention. Namely:
It is clearly not used for any of these.
As I believe that the purpose of this lowered kurb does not meet any of these tests I would consider the issue of the PCN and the towing to both be examples of procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
If the enforcement authority believes that this is not the case I would like to request the evidence to the contarary.
Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 09:31
Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 09:39
We can try and refine this to the nth degree, but to what purpose?
It seems to have all the points I raised. If others mentioned additional points earlier in the thread then throw these into the mix.
Unlike the song, it is what you do and not the way that you do it. It's content, not form, style and presentation that are the essence. The others are icing on the cake.
Wed, 14 Mar 2012 - 10:38
I've sent my representations now so I'll wait to hear and let you know.
Thu, 12 Apr 2012 - 10:26
Right I've had a rejection letter back from the Council (which seems to be pretty standard practice in most cases, having looked through quite a few other cases on these forums).
Here's the rejection letter:-
To be clear about what I included in my representations, I included both the text from HCA and from Bogsy to strengthen my appeal. I didn't include any text about "De minimis" as I believe this went against the arguements made by both HCA and Bogsy as you would in effect be admitting that you had made the alleged parking contravention (DK).
I now have an appeal form for the Parking and Traffic Adjudicators which I will obviously fill in and send off to fight the decision of the council.
Do I need to reiterate my arguements that I sent to the council or should I start afresh? Is this the right time to bring in the De Minimis arguement?
Also, I have been monitoring this DK for the past month - as much as I can - and have noticed that there has been inconsistancies with the wa that the council has dealt with vehicles parking over or around it. Some have just been given tickets, some have been towed and some have just been left with nothing. I have taken photos of some of the vehicles parked across the DK. Should I include these in my appeal?
Should I also included Bogsy's extra text to support his arguements about vehicle removal and being made to pay the PCN upfront before recovering your car?
Is it better to go for a personal hearing rather than a postal decision?
All help greatly appreciated, as always.
Thu, 12 Apr 2012 - 12:29
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 10:12
Bump...please help...
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 10:45
As you say, register your appeal (complete the form, tick contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety). We always suggest a personal hearing because your words carry more conviction and it allows the adj to ask questions.
The appeal is against the decision of the council to reject your reps and therefore the starting point is what is already in the public domain i.e. the PCN, your reps and their NOR. By all means make additional points not otherwise included in your reps and which might have arisen post-NOR.
In essence your argument is that you weren't parked adjacent to a DK because it doesn't meet the criteria for a DK; and even if it does your encroachment was de minimis; a PCN should not have been served; and the towing of the vehicle was disproportionate to the contravention.
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 10:50
Is there some reason you keep obscuring location?
You've offered images, etc but no one has had the opportunity to look for themselves.
Sorry if I've missed it and it's been posted.
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 13:20
I thought it was best to keep the location as anonymous as posible so it couldn't be tracked back to me - which is why the rest of the info is blacked out too...
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 11:45)
Thanks HCA, I'll get cracking.
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 - 20:55
No need to hide the location - most people show it and a link to the place so we can look at it on GoogleStreet View.
There's no problem with it being traced back to you - unlikely and what on earth would they do about it, you are allowed to seek advice when accused of a contravention that you dispute and that will cost you money!
Wed, 18 Apr 2012 - 15:54
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Tue, 28 Feb 2012 - 01:30)
But you also need to read & learn from a few other towing threads, search back a few pages for relevant headings and read what others have used as their appeal wording in Council tow cases. There's the fact that towing is wholly disproportionate in this instance (as per Caroline Sheppard, Chief Parking Adjudicator, who you'll find quoted on other towing threads).
Any idea where I can find the relevant Sheppard quote? I've searched but not found an actual quote...
Here's a link to the location on google maps:-
http://g.co/maps/ezj6p
Wed, 18 Apr 2012 - 19:46
QUOTE (code27 @ Wed, 18 Apr 2012 - 16:54)
Try a few of the threads that automatically load with this Google search:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aforums.pepipoo...g+proportionate
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 - 10:24
See post # 4 by marvin 28 in this thread
Parking Contravention 27, Parking at a dropped kerb that is not in use
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry691334
Also see post # 4 of this thread for some official guidance information
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68558
The guidance applies even when it would be easier to ignore it.
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 - 11:04
Thanks both SchoolRumMum and qafqa for your input.
I find the following part of the 2009-10 Parking Report - from Marvin28's post - very interesting.
An authority that decides to use the power should before
commencement publicise the circumstances in which they will or will not
take action. If an authority decides to target an area where there is known
to be a problem they should first use additional publicities such as leaflets to
all households in the area."
Therefore the Secretary of State has made it completely clear that there is a
strong duty on enforcement authorities intending to use the powers in their
area to publicise the contraventions and where they apply. It must also be
right that motorists are entitled to know of the exceptions.
This has deifintely not been the case with Enfield council - for obvious reasons in my opinion (money making?) - As prevously stated this supposed DK is a place that people have parked for as long as I have lived near this location and there has not been any ticketing or towing until it was recently re-surfaced. Should I add this to my appeal?
Thu, 19 Apr 2012 - 23:11
Add everything you have been advised, and everything you have read on links that seems relevant.
Put it all together into a draft appeal and post it here first for comments.
Wed, 25 Apr 2012 - 13:01
Right I'm working on my appeal. Here's what I've got so far:-
I am writing to appeal against the Notice of Rejection of Formal Representations dated 05/04/2012 (post marked 10/04/2012) as I still believe that the alleged contravention (code 27) did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority.
The council gave the following reasons for rejecting my representations:-
“It is an offence to parked adjacent to dropped footway/crossing areas; this offence is clearly referred to in the Highway Code where it is stated in section 243 “Do not stop or park where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles”. The Authority is not required to erect signs under current legislation advising of the contravention. This covers any dropped footway including those which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which assist pedestrians crossing the road.
A site visit has been conducted and the Council is satisfied that the dropped footway in question is properly constructed and of an enforceable condition (photographs enclosed). The dropped footway at this location facilitates access from Baker Street to the adjacent dropped footway at the entrance to Kenilworth Crescent.
All local Authorities engaged in parking enforcement, under the contained with the Traffic Management Act 2004, operate the same system when dealing with vehicles removed for committing parking contraventions i.e. the motorist must pay to release the vehicle before appealing the Notice. The practice is part of legislation and not particular to this Local Authority. Therefore the Council is satisfied that it did not act improperly when requesting payment before releasing the vehicle."
I believe that contravention (code 27) did not actually occur as the “dropped footway” (or dropped kerb) in question does not meet any of the statutory tests which prove the contravention.
(i)	assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway;
The location of this dropped kerb sits in the mouth of a road junction on the opposite side of the carriageway. It is inconceivable that the purpose of installing it was to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway as there would be no beneficial purpose in crossing at such an exposed and dangerous position.
(ii)	assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway;
(iii)	assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;
This is clearly not the purpose of this dropped kerb.
I have been seeking advice on this matter online and I’m informed that for a dropped kerb to be defined as a dropped kerb the crossing places must be directly opposite (see below).
-Image from qafqa showing "Crossing places must be directly opposite"-
The Council provided a photo which seems to suggest that they are opposite, however, this is to do with the angle at which the photo have been taken and is thus misleading. I have enclosed photos which I have taken when I am directly opposite the crossing (standing in the road junction). These, I think, prove that the dropped kerb in question is definitely not directly opposite the dropped kerb on the corner of Kenilworth Crescent, but offset meaning that it leads into the junction itself and make this a dangerous place to cross. This would again serve to prove that the contravention did not occur as the dropped kerb in question does not meet the criteria for a dropped kerb.
If this is proved not to be the case and it is suggested that it is a legal dropped kerb then I would suggest that my encroachment on it was “de minimis”. I am informed that only the part that is flush to the road can actually be considered the “dropped kerb”. The inclined sections of the kerb are refered to as “taper kerbs” – Please see image below.
-Image outlining taper kerbs and dropped kerbs from DfT (via qafqa)-
If this is the case it is only the front bumper of the car which is actually encroaching on the suggested “dropped kerb”. This encroachment is so minor I think it should definitely be considered “de minimis”. I believe the majority of the dropped kerb is still accessible and could still be used as, the Council suggests, is intended. With this in mind, I would suggest that the PCN should not have been served.
I should point out that the "dropped kerb" in question is on an island between the main road of Baker Street and a lay-by section which Baker Street residents use to park in (see map below – the white section labelled Baker Street is the lay-by section). For the four years that we have lived on Baker Street we have parked on this section of road, along with most of our neighbours. I would say that over that time someone has parked over this section of dropped kerb almost every day. Over the course of the four years there has been no enforcement of this dropped kerb, to my knowledge, until the dropped kerb in question was recently re-tarmaced. Since this has happened there has been enforcement of the code 27 contravention by Enfield Council, without any fore warning. As the Council is not required by law to put up signage, it was impossible to know that anything had changed. According to the Secretary of State’s guidance, which is contained in chapter 8 of “Parking Policy and Enforcement” published in March 2008 (“the Guidance”, Paragraph 8.59A), regarding the enforcement of dropped kerbs states:-
“...An authority that decides to use the power should before commencement publicise the circumstances in which they will or will not take action. If an authority decides to target an area which is known to be a problem they should first use additional publicities such as leaflets to all households in the area.
right that motorists are entitled to know of the exceptions.”
There has certainly been, to my knowledge, no publicity from the Council about the enforcement of this dropped kerb and so there is no way for me or other local residents to presume that anything had changed and that this was now a special enforcement area.
To add confusion to the issue the Enforcement Authority appear to be acting inconsistently regarding the enforcement of this special enforcement area. There have been many vehicles parked across this dropped kerb who have not received a PCN, even when parked there overnight. There was a large white transit van parked across it for days, which received a PCN but did not get towed. I have included photos of these vehicles to prove this point.
On top of this there is the issue of the towing itself. I believe this to be completely disproportionate to the contravention, which was at most “de mimimis”. In an article in the Daily Mail on the 29th Aug 2006 it was stated that:
“Caroline Sheppard, the chief parking adjudicator for England and Wales, said that traffic wardens should only tow away as a ‘last resort’.”
She went on in the same article to say:
“Under the Human Rights Act there is a right to the possession of property unless in circumstances involving the enforcement of the law. But proportionality must come into that.
Councils need to decide if a penalty charge would have been sufficient. Each case must be looked at on its merits.”
I believe that this is a case where towing was disproportionate to the contravention especially considering the time. The car had been parked at about 20:00 and would have left there as we did not need to use it again until the next day. Without prior knowledge of the new enforcement of this dropped kerb as a special enforcement area there would be no reason to assume that it was not OK to park the car there, as had been the case for the previous four years. Even if the Enforcement Authority believed the contravention occurred the fact that it was “de minimis” should make them question the need to tow the vehicle at 20:57 on a Thursday night, in my opinion.
I'm not sure how to end? Any suggestions/editing appreciated.
Also, I've not followed up on Bogsy's arguement about paying before vehicle is retrieved. Is this OK? or should I include a follow up? - I think I read somewhere on here that this arguement has not been successful or is generally ignored...but I could be wrong...
I have not uploaded any photos or images used but can do if needed. - please let me know.
Wed, 25 Apr 2012 - 22:02
I would include the bit about being forced to pay the PCN before the vehicle is retrieved. It has not been debunked, I think it's has just been cleverly side-stepped by adjudicators who have preferred to make a decision based on other points.
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 09:48
The Adjudicator will have a copy of the NOR so repeating it does not help the Appeal,
removing the response from the council concentrates the attention on what you have to say,
which is excellent BTW.
Quoting advice from the internet like this could be taken the wrong way!
It is far better to just refer to the official documents and how they describe the alignment
If you want to comment on the validity of some of the details in the NOR you have the information available in the DfT publication Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces through which you can describe and illustrate how the council has failed to align the dropped kerbs correctly. It also gives you the opportunity to add your own version of post # 6 by Bagshot and describe how the council is dangerously launching pedestrians into the road.
To show how the council have deviated from the DfT advice include more of the illustrations showing the correct alignment of dropped kerbs from the Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces in the Appeal, a PDF copy of the guidance could go onto a CD for the Adjudicator along with more photographs.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...ilepav6167.html
"The Authority is not required to erect signs under current legislation advising of the contravention. This covers any dropped footway including those which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which assist pedestrians crossing the road."
Erecting signs may be outside the legislation but the DfT offers clear advice on the applicable road marking.
22.15 The marking to diagram 1026.1 (see
figure 22-4) may be laid on part of the carriageway
which should be kept clear of parked vehicles either
outside an entrance to off-street premises, or where
the kerb is dropped to provide a convenient crossing
place for pedestrians.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/traf...-chapter-05.pdf
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 10:19
Thanks SchoolRunMum and qafqa for your speedy & helpful replies.
I am working on the second draft which I will post again here today.
qafqa - My only concern about quoting the "Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces" is that this DK does not have the bump tactile paving that this document is refering to. Does that matter? Should this DK have a tactile surface? Do these rules apply to ALL DKs anyway? If so is there another source to quote? - Sorry for all the questions but I just want to make it clear in my head.
Also, you mention the applicable road markings. The cutting you gave to illustrate this mentions "new and totally reconstructed pedestrian crossings". Does this apply to a re-tarmaced one?
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 11:10
The DfT advice is clear, sensible and supports the bad alignment aspect of your case, whether to include it is entirely at your discretion. It is possibly a side issue anyway as every time I see the photos taken by the CEO it is obvious the main point at the Appeal is the minimal nature of a possible incursion.
“It is an offence to parked adjacent to dropped footway/crossing areas; this offence is clearly referred to in the Highway Code where it is stated in section 243 “Do not stop or park where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles”.
That quote in your draft prompted the use of official guidance to show the council are not
following the established protocols. If the council allege the dropped kerb is for the
differently able it should comply with the instructions issued by the superior Authority.
The source page of the picture is here:
http://www.accesscode.info/external/5_4.htm
Those kerbs look like they were reconstructed and now you mention it
that lump of black asphalt/bitumen pavement does look quite new ...
Another possible example of non-compliance by the council and
if the Adjudicator asks the same question about the line in the
picture there is an answer.
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create:
If you sense that anything will adversely affect your appeal don't include
it, just go with what you are comfortable with
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 13:27
OK, here we go....Draft No.2:-
I have been researching this matter and I have discovered that for a dropped kerb to be defined as a dropped kerb the crossing places must be directly opposite (see below).
- Image of Crossing Places must be opposite -
(Taken from the Department of Transport’s Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...lepavement.pdf)
The Council provided a photo which seems to suggest that they are opposite, however, this is to do with the angle at which the photo have been taken and is thus misleading. I have enclosed photos which I have taken when I am directly opposite the crossing. These, I think, prove that the dropped kerb in question is definitely not directly opposite the dropped kerb on the corner of Kenilworth Crescent, but offset meaning that it leads into the junction itself and make this a dangerous place to cross. This would again serve to prove that the contravention did not occur as the dropped kerb in question does not meet the criteria for a dropped kerb.
- Image showing Taper/Dropped kerb and 'Dropped kerb' road markings (Later refered)-
If this is the case it is only the front bumper of the car which is actually encroaching on the suggested “dropped kerb”. This encroachment is so minor I think it should definitely be considered “de minimis”. I believe the majority of the dropped kerb is still accessible and could still be used, as the Council suggests, is intended. With this in mind, I would suggest that the PCN should not have been served.
I should point out that the dropped kerb in question is on an island between the main road of Baker Street and a lay-by section which Baker Street residents use to park in (see map below – the white section labelled Baker Street is the lay-by section).
- Image from google maps of Baker Street showning main road and lay-by section -
For the four years that we have lived on Baker Street we have parked on this section of road, along with most of our neighbours. I would say that over that time someone has parked over this section of dropped kerb almost every day. Over the course of the four years there has been no enforcement of this dropped kerb, to my knowledge, until the dropped kerb in question was recently re-tarmaced. Since this has happened there has been enforcement of the code 27 contravention by Enfield Council, without any fore warning. As the Council is not required by law to put up signage, it was impossible to know that anything had changed. According to the Secretary of State’s guidance, which is contained in chapter 8 of “Parking Policy and Enforcement” published in March 2008 (“the Guidance”, Paragraph 8.59A), regarding the enforcement of dropped kerbs states:-
Another way to have made this change clearer would be to erect signage but the Council are not legally bound to do so and have chosen not to. They should, however, have laid an H marking across the dropped kerb as described here:-
- Image of Dropped Kerb with line from Access & Mobility -
(Taken from Code of Practice on Access & Mobility, External Environments Fact Sheet 5.4, Dropped kerb detail at pedestrian crossings - http://www.accesscode.info/external/5_4.htm)
It is also described in Department of Transport’s Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces (see page 3 of this document – note the “‘Dropped kerb’ road marking” on the left) and here in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, pg 134: (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf)
- Image of figure 22-4 -
I believe that this is a case where towing was disproportionate to the contravention especially considering the time. The car had been parked at about 20:00 and would have been left there as we did not need to use it again until the next day. Without prior knowledge of the new enforcement of this dropped kerb as a special enforcement area there would be no reason to assume that it was not OK to park the car there, as had been the case for the previous four years. Even if the Enforcement Authority believed the contravention occurred the fact that it was “de minimis” should make them question the need to tow the vehicle at 20:57 on a Thursday night, in my opinion.
Lastly, I would like to deal with the issue of paying to release my vehicle before appealing the Notice. The Council insists that it:
“...did not act improperly when requesting payment before releasing the vehicle.”
As apparently:
“The practise is part of legislation and not particular to this Local Authority.”
However, I would like to submit the following for consideration.
The TMA 2004 purposely inserted both s.101A and s.102(2A) into the RTRA 1984. It is plainly obvious that each must serve a specific purpose and it is paramount to this appeal and for the correct application of the law that their specific purpose is correctly identified.
It is a truth that both section 101A & 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enable a council to levy charges in regard to vehicles that are removed inside a civil enforcement area;
101A(1) If before a vehicle is disposed of by an authority under section 101 above it is claimed by a person who—
Sections 101A and s.102 have profound differences. Subsection 101A(1) advises that the charges are to be paid by the "owner" while the charges under 102(2A) are to be paid by the "person responsible” . The “relevant charges” under subsection 101A(1) include the payment of any penalty charge payable, whereas 102(2A) does not require payment of any penalty charge payable.
These profound differences provoke an essential question;
For what purpose does the 1984 Act provide two sections that are similar yet essentially different in the powers they confer?
The answer I believe is simple. Section 101A concerns those charges to be paid by the "owner" in relation to the recovery of a vehicle that was considered to be abandoned. Whereas section 102 concerns those charges to be paid by the "person responsible" in relation to a vehicle that was not considered to be abandoned or a vehicle that was considered to be abandoned and no recovery was made pursuant to s.101A. I believe Part 3 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008 best demonstrates that the charges under section 101A RTRA 1984 are only applicable in the recovery of those vehicles that were considered to be abandoned.
12. Interpretation of Part 3
13. Amendment of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
14. Steps to be taken to find the owners of certain vehicles
15. Notice to owner requiring removal of vehicle
16. Period during which owner may remove vehicle before it can be disposed of
17. Information to be given relating to the disposal of a vehicle
18. Period during which owner may remove vehicle before it is disposed of
It is a truth that Part 3 solely concerns itself with those vehicles that are considered to be abandoned and there is an intention to dispose. Regulation 18 under Part 3 has a clear correlation with s.101A RTRA 1984;
Period during which owner may remove vehicle before it is disposed of
18. For the purpose of section 101A, where a person—
(a) satisfies the Secretary of State that he is the owner of a vehicle; and
(b) has paid the relevant charges,
he shall be permitted to remove the vehicle from the Secretary of State’s custody within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State became satisfied that he was the owner.
The words “before it is disposed of” suggest that it can be disposed of and yet regulation 16 is absolutely clear that there is a prescribed period that must first expire “before it can be disposed of”. It is plainly obvious that there is a definite chronological and procedural process that must be satisfied before regulation 18 and s.101A RTRA 1984 become applicable and it is again obvious that this process is only applicable where a vehicle is considered to be abandoned. Section 101A provides a final opportunity for the vehicle owner to prevent the ultimate disposal of their vehicle in between the point when it can be disposed of and before it is disposed of. Although I have used The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Traffic Officers) (England) Regulations 2008 for demonstration purposes, the same arguments extend to Part 3 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986.
It is unfortunate that the council were mislead by the eye catching heading to section 101A RTRA 1984 but as always the devil is in the detail. I believe that I have here and in my formal representations, incontestably demonstrated that the council were wrong to apply the “relevant charges” under section 101A RTRA 1984 in regard to my vehicle when it was at no time considered by them to be abandoned. The correct charges to apply were those permitted under s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 and this truth is made apparent under paragraph 1(1)(b) Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004;
(1)This Schedule provides for the setting of the levels of—
(a) penalty charges, including any discounts or surcharges,
(b) charges made by authorities under section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles found in areas that are civil enforcement areas for parking contraventions, and
© charges for the release of vehicles from an immobilisation device under regulations under section 79 above.
Had the council correctly applied s.102(2A) then I would have received, without any interference, all those rights the TMA 2004 says ensue once a regulation 9 PCN is served. These rights being 28 days to pay the penalty charge or make an informal challenge and the option to receive an NtO and make formal representations. I submit that this accord between s.102(2A) RTRA 1984 and the TMA 2004 is no coincidence but is by design and is a purpose for which the TMA 2004 inserted s.102(2A) into the RTRA 1984.
If the council are advocating that these rights are not applicable then in essence the council is suggesting the PCN is a notice filled with lies. If the PCN has no validity then it is a nullity and thus there can be no penalty charge and no lawful CEO removal.
In this appeal I have made it clear why I consider the contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority. Further to this I believe I have shown that the Council have failed to inform residents about the new enforcement of the “dropped kerb" as a special enforcement area and they have been inconsistent in their enforcement of it. Even if the Enforcement Authority considered my car to be encroaching on the alleged “dropped kerb”, I believe that it is, at most, “de minimis” and so towing was completely disproportionate to the contravention, especially when considering the time of day. I also uphold my belief that the Council should not have requested payment before the release of my vehicle as it was clearly not abandoned and so I should have been given the rights which ensue once a regulation 9 PCN is served.
Any thoughts? Is the end OK?
Thanks all for input - greatly appreciated.
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 15:18
Absolutely superb, in a few hours you have transformed the draft into a substantial and considered Appeal.
One issue that can be highlighted is a possible P.I. resulting from this paragraph in the NOR:
The Authority is not required to erect signs under current legislation advising of the contravention. This covers any dropped footway including those which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which assist pedestrians crossing the road.
It seems to be linked to this paragraph:
The above paragraph could be rephrased to question if there has been a Procedural Impropriety in the NOR because the advice given by the council was limited to signage, an action that could be interpreted as putting you at a disadvantage. Through your research following the NOR you have discovered that to give you a full picture they should have included information about the road markings that apply to a dropped kerb.
Then continue with the illustrations and information unchanged as they show how partial the council advice was.
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 15:51
Thanks again qafqa - definitely worth including that.
Another way to have made this change clearer would be to erect signage but the Council are not legally bound to do so and have chosen not to. However, I have discovered during my research that they should have laid an H marking across the dropped kerb. It is odd that the Council have not refered to this in the Notice of Rejection, and have only mentioned signage, especially since there is clear guidance on it here:
Thu, 26 Apr 2012 - 17:03
I am running out of superlatives
Just needs a few lines at the end to go with the
hopefully more guidance from SchoolRunMum
who can review the Appeal with fresh eyes!
As the CEO photographs show a pedestrian could easily pass in front of the car
I wonder if it was not causing an obstruction to pedestrians, in which case
the towaway should not have been authorised according to the requirement set out
by the London Councils.
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylob...ivilparking.htm
ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR VEHICLE REMOVALS
68) Removals should not be carried out in an ad-hoc or uncontrolled way. The following circumstances are
suggested in priority order for authorising removal:
a) Dangerous Position when parked in contravention
(i) In a position likely to cause danger to other road users.
b) Serious Obstruction when parked in contravention
(i) Preventing access by emergency vehicles.
(ii) Causing serious obstruction to traffic or pedestrians flow.
(iii) Parked at or near a junction.
(iv) Preventing access to or from private property.
(v) On or adjacent to a footway causing obstruction to pedestrians, particularly if over or next to dropped kerbs for assisting pedestrians crossing the road.
(vi) In a bus or cycle lane when in operation.
(vii) On a bus stop during restricted times.
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 08:53
That is a very valid point qafqa but the Council did clearly state:-
“It is an offence to parked adjacent to dropped footway/crossing areas; this offence is clearly referred to in the Highway Code where it is stated in section 243 “Do not stop or park where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles”. The Authority is not required to erect signs under current legislation advising of the contravention. This covers any dropped footway including those which allow vehicles to cross the footway and those which assist pedestrians crossing the road."
Here they state, as far as I can make out, that the offence commited is one which contravenes section 243 of the Highway Code. This seems to be aimed specifically at wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles rather than just pedestrians - or do these qualify as pedestrians?
Sorry for questioning it, I'm just wondering if I should mention it or not and that hinges on whether it would apply to wheelchair ures and powered mobility vehicles.
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 09:36
You're not writing a letter to a long-lost friend, you're submitting an appeal. I look forward to hearing from you?
Have you opted for a personal hearing or will it be considered as a postal appeal?
If the former, then as an appeal is made under statutory grounds I suggest you alter the narrative style and replace it with headings and bullet points. The adj will NOT read this, neither will anyone else except possibly the council when it's copied to them, in advance of the hearing. And the adj is under time pressure so make his job as easy as possible.
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 10:01
Thanks for your reply. I can obviously strip it out but that's what my initial appeal to the council was like and that was rejected.
In order to add weight to my arguements I believe it necessary to explain the points in more detail.
I could put headings in to clarify but may need more than bullet points to get my point accross. Also, the end section about the vehicle payment/towing is what bogsy suggests and I don't really want to alter that as all the content seems important.
I am going for the personal hearing, as advised, so "I look forward to hearing from you" does seem a bit odd, I admit!
Would the whole appeal not be read before the hearing by the adj?