Parking Ticket Appeal

It’s worth having a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7363599.stm a recent BBC news story about a report of Leeds Council to the police for illegal parking ticket enforcement.

The new parking appeals forum is now up and running, although there are likely to be quite a few tweaks in the next few months.  My intention is to provide a place where people can ask questions about their appeal, and even more helpful information.

 Please feel free to post any questions you have there, I will be slowly adding sticky / information threads to the forum to ensure people have access to useful (and free!) information in a helpful format.

Anyway, take care!

A private parking company is likely to initially approach you with a letter stating that you parked unlawfully, and that as the registered keeper you are liable for the fine. It is important to note that they will not explain the basis of their claim.Your options are to carry out one of two approaches, initially. The first approach is not to respond to them, and to keep filing their letters away. If they telephone you, just put your phone done. Enter into no communication at all. Often, they will just go away.

Your second approach is to send them a simple letter, stating:

Dear Sir Or Madam,

With regard to your letter dated XXth, I am not aware of any legal precedent or statute which makes the registered keeper liable for any civil penalty, other than an official PCN under the road traffic Acts.

You are not the parking authority, and have not explained under what statutory basis you believe I am liable.

I recommend you contact the driver,

Yours Faithfully,

XXXX.

If they respond further, each time ask them for their legal basis of the claim. Inform them you are not aware of any reason you are liable. If they request you to inform them who the driver is, say you are under no obligation, and to do so would breach the recommendation of the Chief Constable in  your area since you have no evidence their claim is legitimate.

Do not admit anything, and challenge every statement asking them to explain under what law they are operating.

 As a new traffic regime starts, motorists might be wondering how in the new system they are able to defend their tickets. With the new powers of parking attendants (which include the power to issue a ticket without handing it to the owner or placing it on the car), which relies almost exclusively on the honesty of lowly paid workers who have ever incentive to issues tickets. Also, the power to issue Parking tickets from CCTV cameras. There is no legal guarantee that the operative will even have been at the place where he/she is issuing tickets, and therefore they might not be aware of the situation on the ground.

Further implications are that it will become very difficult for the motorist to gather evidence, since by the time the ticket is served, people in the area who might have been witnesses to the circumstance will have disappeared, and memories will have faded.

Another issue is, since local authorities can set their own charges, and there is now a two tier system there is no reasonable way for the ordinary motorist to actually know how much a particular offence might cost.

It is now a contravention to park too far from the kerb, and apparently CCTV cameras will be able to measure this accurately. I am not sure how they can do so. As a software engineer, I would not have confidence in such a system, given the road markings and accuracy of CCTV equipment.

At the same time, while Caroline Sheppard, the chief adjudicator of the newly established Traffic Penalty Tribunal has told the Times that drivers would be given the benefit of the doubt in appeals, this is far from the legal status. In fact, the burden of proof has always been on the council, but councils will have a much greater scope. It is already a feature of the system that councils tend to have better preserved evidence, in the new system people will have a much poorer opportunity to dispute tickets.

One development that does have some promise is the introduction of video equipment on Parking Attendants.  This may help prevent them from cheating the system, and introduce better safeguards.

I normally have a great deal of respect for the law, but in this case I think it will take a great number of cases before we even determine if the law is legal from a Human rights viewpoint.

 There is no automatic right for review of an adjudicator’s decision, and any application (even falling within grounds for such a review) may be denied if there is no reasonable prospect of success. McArthur appeal was lengthy, and was granted on the grounds that the PCN did not properly set out information required by s66 of the RTA 91.

The TRO specified that the PCN should include this information.

 The adjudicator stated that the exact words must be used.  The review application was that such an interpretation was unreasonable. 

The bury PCN did not have any date specifically as the date of notice or issue, the PCN stated that the payment was to be made within 28 days (not days after the issue of the notice) and did not properly state who would receive the notice to owner (it stated “you” rather than the registered keeper or owner).

The council’s case was that Mr McArthur was not actually prejudiced by any of these omissions.  The accepted test was whether there was a serious possibility of real prejudice.

The adjudicator found that the requirements of s66 are that every PCN should convey certain information, not necessary prescribe the form of wording to be used.  The TRO which refers to “a penalty charge notice showing the information required by section 66 …” did not significantly affect this.

The adjudicator found the date of contravention was not the date of notice.  There is a reasonable prospect of prejudice, and so the appeal should be allowed on that basis.

The phrases “within 28 days” and “within 14 days” convey different information from

That specified in section 66(3), since “within” excludes the day the notice was issued.

A penal notice should be unequivocal and clear; it should explicitly state how the liability arose.

The Bury PCN is misleading as it states the notice to owner will be sent to the driver, not to the owner or keeper.

The fact the council failed to model their PCN on the guidance, and extended the time for payment. They do so at their own risk. The adjudicator found their was not substantial compliance  

Owners do not have to say in their representations how or to what extent they had actually been prejudiced. There is no requirement to prove actual prejudice. It is enough if the defects are capable of causing a serious possibility of real prejudice

Application for Review of

Adjudicator’s Decision

The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Regulation 11

Mr Roger L. Macarthur

and

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) BC30016187

The adjudicator allowed Miss Francis’s appeal against a penalty charge notice issued by the local authority. The case hinged on the proper construction of s66 of schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Miss Francis entrusted to Mr Baker a car for repair. During that period the car was parked in contravention of the regulations. Miss Francis was not told of the PCN, and it was not attached to the car when she picked it up.  She appealed on the basis she was not the owner of the car at the time of the PCN.

Under s66(2) the owner is liable for any penalty charge.

The section requires that where a penalty charge notice has been issued, after 28 days the London authority can serve a notice to owner to the person who appears to have been the owner of the vehicle when the contravention occurred.

Where the grounds for appeal are that someone else was the owner at the time of contravention, the appellant must in their representation provide the name and address of the owner if it is known. The council must consider these representations.

On an appeal, the Parking Adjudicator shall consider the representations, and any further representations.

Under s88(2) of the act the owner shall be taken to be the person by whom the vehicle is kept. Under subsection (3) this is presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle was registered. This is consistent with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971; Regulation 3.

The adjudicator took the approach that the presumption contained in s82(3) was rebuttable, and that the question was whether Miss Francis was the keeper of the vehicle.  He was impressed that the repairer who takes a vehicle for repair is a bailee and has a lien which he can exercise against the car.

The Divisional Court upheld this argument on the grounds that once it was accepted by council that the presumption in s82(3) was rebuttable, it was a question of fact, and the conclusion of the adjudicator was not unreasonable.

Mr Wilkie QC challenged that contravention. His arguments were that the person who appears to be the owner will be the registered keeper. There are only three ways for the presumption to be rebutted; showing that the registered owner was never the keeper; that he ceased to be the owner before the day of the contravention; or he became the owner after the “offence” sic.  Mr Wilkie submits that the disposition must be the sort that would require notification of change of ownership.

Mr Gordon accepts that a disposition sufficient for the requirement of paragraph 2(4)(a) and 2(5) (changes of ownership) would require notification of change of ownership.  These changes of ownership must involve the right to keep the vehicle, and involves a large degree of permanence and the right to use the vehicle.  A vehicle repairer might become the owner, but did not become the owner simply because he has a lien on it. The change of ownership must be of the sort that would require notification within Regulation 12 of the 1971 Regulations.

Ref info:

Decision Text Judicial Review: R v. PARKING ADJUDICATOR ex parte MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH [1996] EWCA Civ 869 (1st November, 1996) 

R v. PARKING ADJUDICATOR ex parte MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH [1996] EWCA Civ 869 (1st November, 1996)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE QBCOF 96/1153/D

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

(LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN )

(MR JUSTICE SMEDLEY )

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London W2A 2LL

Friday 1st November 1996

B e f o r e

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH

LORD JUSTICE MORRITT

SIR JOHN MAY

R E G I N A

v.

THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR Respondent

ex parte THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH Appellant
 

In the last few posts I have given you the standard road markings for particular types of parking restrictions. They are at:

http://ticketappeal.co.uk/?p=131 (Echelon parking bays)

http://ticketappeal.co.uk/?p=129 (Horizontal parking bays)

http://ticketappeal.co.uk/?p=128 (Horizontal )

http://ticketappeal.co.uk/?p=127 (single yellow lines)

What you need to do is examine all the markings in the road where you got the ticket:

• 1. Is the colour the same (including any borders)?
• 2. Is the wording identical
• 3. Are all placements on the sign correct?
• 4. If you were on a restricted street, were the signs associated with that restriction placed on your side of the road?
• 5. Are chevrons repeated at the right distances?
• 6. Are the markings the length required by the diagrams?

Basically be as picky as you can, and examine everything like a hawk. Check that everything matches the regulation diagrams exactly. If they don’t then check whether the regulations allow variation. There are provisions in the regulations for markings to be smaller or bigger than the diagrams, but where a maximum/minimum is defined then that is how large the road sign should be.

No discrepancy is too small; remember the council has an explicit requirement to ensure the signs on the road match the requirements of the regulations.

There are two views on these discrepancies… some adjudicators say that minor discrepancies are OK, as long as they can’t prejudice the driver. However, there is also case law states that regardless of prejudice, the signs must be as stated. It is your place to persuade the adjudicator to follow the second set of authorities, and to know the regulations that apply to your parking appeal.

I will discuss this in more detail latter…  This is just a short post, on Easter weekend, after unexpected guests;)

 This is the end of the parking road mark cheat sheets. The next post will be more textual, describing the basic approach towards recognising whether signs are incorrect or not.

Thanks for sticking by in these last few posts - they are important, and I will build on them soon, I promise

Main Diagram 1033

Related Diagrams

Diagram 639.1B

Diagram 660

Diagram 660.3

Diagram 660.4 and 660.5

Diagram 660.6

Diagram 660.7

Diagram 661.1 and  661.2a and 661.3a

Diagram 663.1

Diagram 801

 Some people MAY have gathered that my schedule is to post one article a day, with the intention of building up the contents to a reasonable size site. However, I thought I’d take this opportunity (approximately the first month birthday) to talk about the site. It’s a bonus post, so it won’t stop you getting your daily fix So far, my aims have been:

 Main Diagrams :1028.2

Main Diagram 1028.3

Main Diagram 1028.4

Main Diagram 1032

DIAGRAMS RELATED TO 1028.2

Diagram 640

Diagram 650.1

Diagram 650.2

Diagram 650.3

Diagram 857.1

DIAGRAMS RELATED TO 1028.3

Diagram 639.1b

Diagram 660

Diagram 660.4 (Not 660.5)

Diagram 661A and Diagram 661.1

Diagram 786

Diagram 801 (Used with 804.1)

Diagram 804.1 (Used with 801)

Diagram 969

DIAGRAMS RELATED TO DIAGRAM 1028.4

Diagram 639.1b

Diagram 660

Diagram 650.3

Diagram 660.5 (NOT 660.4)

Diagram 660.6

Diagram 660.7

Diagram 661.1 and Diagram 661.2A and Diagram 661.3A

Diagram 662

Diagram 667

Diagram 667.1

Diagram 668.1

Diagram 801

DIAGRAMS RELATED TO DIAGRAM 1032

Diagram 639.1b

Diagram 660

Diagram 660.3

Diagram 660.4 and Diagram 660.5

Diagram 660.6

Diagram 660.7

Diagram 661a and Diagram 661.2a and Diagram 661.3A

Diagram 662

Diagram 663.1

Diagram 801