Towed away on Sunday afternoon- Camden

[George2013]

Hi, I am looking for help and/or advice please!

I was towed away in Camden, Sunday, April 7, 2013 at 16.35 a.m.

I parked my car on a single yellow line in Prince of Wales Road at 15:50, in front of the car, which was already there.

I checked for signs and couldn’t see any restrictions. Prince of Wales Road on this side did not have any signs. Only one I could see, was at the corner between Prince of Wales Road going right to Haverstock Hill, towards Belsize Park. This sign restricted parking on single yellow line on Saturday, between 9:30 am -1:30 pm. There was lot’s of parked cars on both sides of the Haverstock Hill road, and there was already one on Prince of Wales Road, so I accepted that the parking restriction for both roads was the same.

PCN was issued at 16:02 and car was towed at 16:35. I returned back at 16:50, just to realise that car is not there.

I called the Police, and then Camden Parking, just to find that my car was at Regis Road Car Pound. It cost me £265 to get car released.

I am not local, and obviously I was not aware of notorious CA-F (NW) parking zone restrictions. I entered into zone from Camden. The entry sign was just after the Camden Lock bridge, at the entrance to Chalk Farm Road.

From there, there was no any other sign, as I drove through Chalk Farm Road, Haverstock Hill Road and turned right to Prince of Wales Road, where I parked my car. Distance from the entrance to the parking was about 1.5 miles.

My points:

1. Prince of Wales Road borders two different zones CA-F (NW) (banned for all days) and CA-L (Outer) zone (banned for Mo-Sat)

2. Restriction signs are not transparent, they are rather confusing.

3. Distance from the entry point into Zone to the place I parked, is far away for drivers to be able to read and remember the restrictions, escpeccially when you need to concentrate to Camden traffic and lights in front of you.

4. Why does a Council have to waste so much time and effort taking a car away when it is not causing an obstruction to the road that is four lines wide. They towed car half an hour after they issued the PCN? Can just PCN be enough as a punishment?

Few days later I went to checked all Controll Zone signs. It looks that all of them are as they should be. Only, I could mention minor obstacles on the entry sign, as someone put some stickers on it, but noting else.

I have 28 days to contest, starting on April 7, 2013. Please advise on best route of action. Please find attached detailed images.

I would really appreciate anyone to take the time to view and advise.

Many thanks,

George

[Jamberson]

You were parked on a single yellow which didn't have a time plate. That means the yellow line is subject to the underlying restriction for that parking zone - ie, what is stated on the sign as you enter the zone.

 

I've looked at the one you describe, at the entrance to Chalk Farm Road, and that states Sundays, 10am - 11pm.

 

On this basis, you were parked while the restriction was in force, and the council can tow you for that if they decide to.

 

I can't see you have much of a case.

[George2013]

Thanks Jamberson,

If you are not local, it is very easy to get caugth in a trap.

I can accept PCN they slap on my car as a punishment for parking on yellow line, but towing the car, which is not causing any obstruction, is too much!?

[Jamberson]

Yes, I agree. But the fact is, the council can tow any car which is parked in contravention, as they wish (except those with Blue Badges). You can complain, but it won't get your the money back.

[George2013]

It looks like Council has right to do whatever they want, adn only thing we can do is to pay whatever they ask.

I can see that they will be able to to sell or destroy your car parked in contravention, half an hour after is towed away if you are not there to pay in time!?

Sorry Jamberson, I know that you are right, but I am still bitter and angry.

[TheBogsDollocks]

You can use the text below if you want to appeal. It is always worth appealing all the way with a towing case as you have nothing to lose.

 

At the time of parking I was unaware that I was doing so during the operational hours of a no waiting restriction. I do not recall seeing any traffic sign that conveyed this. I have since learned that the location is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). When replying to this appeal, it will be helpful if the council confirms all those roads where the relevant CPZ entry signage has been placed and when the signage was last inspected and confirmed to be fully present and correct.

 

I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “OperationalGuidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraph D5 provides guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s;

 

D5The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets.

 

I’m informed that the CPZ I unwittingly parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Had the no waiting restriction been adequately conveyed then I as a law abiding citizen would not have parked where it is prohibited.

 

Furthermore, before my vehicle was removed a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) served a Regulation 9 Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by fixing it to my vehicle. The Statutory Instruments made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) and also the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, to which Enforcement Authorities must have regard, specify that service by a CEO initiates my statutory right to a period of 28 days in which to pay the penalty charge or to make an informal challenge that a council must consider. In addition, I have a statutory right to receive and respond to a Notice to Owner if my informal challenge is not accepted. These rights are enshrined in law and clearly conveyed within the statutory content of the PCN served by the CEO.

 

However, I was denied by coercion my right to the 28 day statutory period in which to pay the penalty charge; I was also denied my right to have an informal challenge considered and I was obstructed from my right to receive and respond to a Notice to Owner. Also, I have been subjected to an appeal process pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) NOT the TMA 2004. It is absurd that my vehicle has been removed from within a Civil Enforcement Area by a Civil Enforcement Authority for a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement and yet the only feature of civil enforcement pursuant to the TMA 2004 that the council has applied is the penalty charge.

 

Civil enforcement is regulated by the TMA 2004 and is a statutory process that begins with the service of a PCN it does not end with it. In this respect, I understand that procedural impropriety occurs where an Enforcement Authority fails to observe any requirement imposed by the TMA 2004 and its associated Statutory Instruments. My right to either pay or contest the PCN in accordance with Part 6 of the TMA 2004 was completely denied as noted above, therefore, there can be no doubt that a procedural impropriety has occurred.

 

I also bring to your attention that the right to retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid is explicitly regulated under sections 102(4) and 102(4A) RTRA 1984 and this right is not extended to civil enforcement authorities. In the circumstances of the case the council had no lawful right to retain my vehicle until I paid the penalty charge and removal fee. The council's actions were ultra vires.

Edited April 26, 2013 by TheBogsDollocks

[Jamberson]

TBD is right to bring this up each time a tow is done. So far as I can see, this is a robust argument. In a nutshell, you have a right of appeal before you pay the PCN. Yet the way they arrange things, you are coerced into paying before you can appeal. This does seem to be grounds to challenge not just the charges, but the whole system.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Thank you Jamberson, I appreciate the acknowledgement from someone such as yourself who knows their onions.

 

It may help to see my posts #15, 31, 34 & 45 in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76538&st=0 to understand where I'm coming from. Indeed, I am challenging the whole system but to be honest it won't be easy to get PATAS to admit that for 20 years they've been complicit in administering an entirely wrong appeal procedure and that for 20 years councils have had no lawful right to retain a removed vehicle (that does not appear to be abandoned) until all sums are paid. For this right see s.102 (4) & (4A) RTRA 1984. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102. Note that it does extend to civil enforcement authorities.

[green_and_mean]

TBD is right to bring this up each time a tow is done. So far as I can see, this is a robust argument. In a nutshell, you have a right of appeal before you pay the PCN. Yet the way they arrange things, you are coerced into paying before you can appeal. This does seem to be grounds to challenge not just the charges, but the whole system.

 

There is in fact no right to appeal a regulation 9 PCN the right of appeal is against the NTO, the appeals regulations state different procedures for reps against the NTO and for removed vehicles for that reason.

[green_and_mean]

Thank you Jamberson, I appreciate the acknowledgement from someone such as yourself who knows their onions.

 

It may help to see my posts #15, 31, 34 & 45 in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76538&st=0 to understand where I'm coming from. Indeed, I am challenging the whole system but to be honest it won't be easy to get PATAS to admit that for 20 years they've been complicit in administering an entirely wrong appeal procedure and that for 20 years councils have had no lawful right to retain a removed vehicle (that does not appear to be abandoned) until all sums are paid. For this right see s.102 (4) & (4A) RTRA 1984. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102. Note that it does extend to civil enforcement authorities.

 

Section 4 refers back to section 2 which is for non CEA removals so has nothing to do with PCNs, section 2a is the section that covers CEA removals...

 

(2A)If the place from which the vehicle is removed is in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the enforcement authority is entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of the vehicle as they may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004

[TheBogsDollocks]

That's right s.102(2A) is applicable to CEA's hence the appeal text. Thanks for confirming.

Edited April 27, 2013 by TheBogsDollocks

[green_and_mean]

That's right s.102(2A) is applicable to CEA's hence the appeal text. Thanks for confirming.

 

I haven't confirmed anything you claimed that 102 (4) explicitly applied which it doesn't quite the opposite 102 (2a) covers CEA removals I'm not sure why you even mention 102 (4)?

[TheBogsDollocks]

Yes you have , look again. Thanks.

[George2013]

I really appreciate your comments and suggestions, so thank you all!

As you said, it is worth to appeal. I will keep you informed and let you know the result.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Go for it, you've nothing to lose. Be prepared for the council to reject your appeal though, this is almost always the case in towing appeals but when it reaches adjudication stage you may succeed. If a rejection letter arrives be sure to post all of it here.

[George2013]

TBD, many thanks for all your help!

I will keep you informed.

[Jamberson]

There is in fact no right to appeal a regulation 9 PCN the right of appeal is against the NTO, the appeals regulations state different procedures for reps against the NTO and for removed vehicles for that reason.

 

What do you mean, no right? If you have a right to appeal the NTO, they must first issue one. If they coerce you into paying before they have done so, then you have forfeited the appeals process. Unless - you say there are different rules for removed vehicles. What are they?

[TheBogsDollocks]

I agree with your thinking Jamberson. Where a regulation 9 PCN is served then there is a right to make informal representations before an NtO is served. If these informal representations are rejected and you want to pursue the matter further then you must wait for the NtO and submit formal representations. These rights following a PCN being served by a CEO are the bedrock of civil enforcement under the TMA 2004 and the law insists that these rights are conveyed on every PCN. However, when a vehicle is removed the rights conveyed on the PCN are being wholly ignored despite that no where under the TMA 2004 does it advise that they can be ignored should a vehicle be removed. It must not be forgotten that the contravention alleged on any PCN is a parking contravention subject to civil enforcement. We all know that it is Part 6 TMA 2004 that regulates civil enforcement and yet other than imposing a penalty charge, no other feature of civil enforcement pursuant to Part 6 TMA 2004 is applied. This fact must surely indicate that something is amiss!

 

The alleged right for civil enforcement authorities to retain until all sums are paid is another dubious claim. Indulge me for a moment and take a look at s.102 RTRA 1984 as it was before decriminalised parking commenced.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102/1991-02-25?timeline=true

 

Note how under s.102(4) all local authorities are given the right to retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid.

 

Now see s.102 RTRA 1984 as it was when decriminalised parking enforcement under the RTA 1991 commenced in July 1993

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/102/1993-07-05?timeline=true

 

Note that s.102(4) does not include subparagraph (d) that was newly inserted into s.102(2). Therefore it is only those councils that continue to enforce under the criminal system that have the right to retain until all sums are paid.

 

Those councils that operate under the decriminalised system have never had the power to lawfully retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid but unfortunately these councils have just carried on with their former power.

[green_and_mean]

What do you mean, no right? If you have a right to appeal the NTO, they must first issue one. If they coerce you into paying before they have done so, then you have forfeited the appeals process. Unless - you say there are different rules for removed vehicles. What are they?

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/contents/made

 

There are 3 distinct sets of regulations regarding appeals, a) against the NTO b) for immobilised vehicles c) for removed vehicles

 

If your vehicle is towed you do not receive a regulation 9 PCN as its on the car so how would you make a challenge without first getting the car back?

[green_and_mean]

Those councils that operate under the decriminalised system have never had the power to lawfully retain a removed vehicle until all sums are paid but unfortunately these councils have just carried on with their former power.

 

102 (2A)If the place from which the vehicle is removed is in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the enforcement authority is entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of the vehicle as they may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004

 

In what way does that not authorise them to do so?

[TheBogsDollocks]

102 (2A)If the place from which the vehicle is removed is in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the enforcement authority is entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges in respect of the removal, storage and disposal of the vehicle as they may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004

 

In what way does that not authorise them to do so?

 

In what way does it authorise them to retain a vehicle until all sums are paid?

[TheBogsDollocks]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/contents/made

 

There are 3 distinct sets of regulations regarding appeals

 

but only 2 are pursuant to the TMA 2004.

Edited April 28, 2013 by TheBogsDollocks

[Jamberson]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/contents/made

 

There are 3 distinct sets of regulations regarding appeals, a) against the NTO b) for immobilised vehicles c) for removed vehicles

 

If your vehicle is towed you do not receive a regulation 9 PCN as its on the car so how would you make a challenge without first getting the car back?

 

So far as I can see (and I'm not going to spend the rest of the day ploughing through legal papers!) these rules outline rights of appeal but don't say that the PCN must be paid first. I would reasonably assume that a PCN issued in relation to a tow carries the same rights as a PCN on its own - unless you know different?

 

So, as per TDB, there should be no compulsion to pay the PCN in order to recover the vehicle - just the tow charges and storage charges, which should secure the vehicle back to the owner. And so your question about how you appeal without recovering the vehicle is not relevant to the issue.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Jamberson

[TheBogsDollocks]

Jamberson, post number 45 in the link below is a quick and easy way to bypass reading anything time consuming. The underlined words in it are hyperlinks should you not know this already.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76538&st=30

 

The council's rejection letter demonstrates that councils are completely muddled in what law they are applying.

[green_and_mean]

So, as per TDB, there should be no compulsion to pay the PCN in order to recover the vehicle - just the tow charges and storage charges, which should secure the vehicle back to the owner. And so your question about how you appeal without recovering the vehicle is not relevant to the issue.

 

 

 

(1)If before a vehicle is disposed of by an authority under section 101 above it is claimed by a person who

 

(a)satisfies the authority that he is its owner, and

 

(b)pays the relevant charges,

 

the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as they may specify or, in the case of an authority other than a local authority, as may be prescribed.

 

In the case of a vehicle found in an area that is a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions, the relevant charges area

 

(a)any penalty charge payable in respect of the parking of the vehicle in the place from which it was removed,

 

(b)such unpaid earlier penalty charges relating to the vehicle as may be prescribed, and

 

©such sums in respect of the removal and storage of the vehicle

 

(i)as the authority may require in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, or

 

(ii)in the case of an authority other than a local authority, as may be prescribed.