Parking appeal rejected - next steps?
Discussion
I'm afraid I can't find my original thread, but suffice to say I parked on a single yellow line in Birmingham one Sunday in January, no plate with restrictions and no sign of a CPZ. My initial letter was rejected on the grounds that there is a CPZ, so I appealed at the end of June.
Yesterday I received a letter from Birmingham City Council rejecting my appeal representations (without any reasons except that to refer me to the Highway Code!). I am happy enough to repeat my representations to the Parking Adjudicator because he might well consider them
However, the response to my representations was dated 10 October 2006, and I believe that means they are out of time so my appeal is unnecessary. Ticketbusters' website (which I have no intention of paying to join) states on its front page: "If the Local Authority does not reply within 56 days of receiving your initial appeal, they must cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any charges you have paid i.e. clamping or tow-away." Does anyone know if that applies in all cases - in particular whether it applies to Birmingham's (apparent) CPZ?
Yesterday I received a letter from Birmingham City Council rejecting my appeal representations (without any reasons except that to refer me to the Highway Code!). I am happy enough to repeat my representations to the Parking Adjudicator because he might well consider them
However, the response to my representations was dated 10 October 2006, and I believe that means they are out of time so my appeal is unnecessary. Ticketbusters' website (which I have no intention of paying to join) states on its front page: "If the Local Authority does not reply within 56 days of receiving your initial appeal, they must cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any charges you have paid i.e. clamping or tow-away." Does anyone know if that applies in all cases - in particular whether it applies to Birmingham's (apparent) CPZ?
I will do that if I have to, but I think the original charge notice should be cancelled anyway due to their failure to reply within 56 days (not even within 56 working days!). If the ticket is no longer valid in the first place there's no point me wasting my time making representations, trying to demonstrate a route into Birmingham which doesn't pass a CPZ sign, etc.
original thread
No idea about 56 days question tbh. Could it be argued that the issue is frozen as soon as you appeal?
So to understand, you have made appeal on basis no valid CPZ and shown that on your route to wherever you didn't pass the required signs? Council have just rejected on basis, unknown? Not even a Oh yes there are signs! ??
Remember you do need to evidence your appeal in full
Remember that you now need to get the Local Govt Ombudsman in the loop.
Remember to use FOI act, and IF you can prove that the council and councillors know / knew of the deficiencies and still allowed ticketing to continue they have committed a VERY serious offence known as malfeasance or misfeasance in a public office. Reportable to police.
More on that here
also more general stuff here
Good luck SJ, final remember, document EVERYTHING, in writing, record of sending, record of delivery. Royal Mail Special delivery costs a bit more but more secure than Recorded Delivery which is a joke.
FiF
No idea about 56 days question tbh. Could it be argued that the issue is frozen as soon as you appeal?
So to understand, you have made appeal on basis no valid CPZ and shown that on your route to wherever you didn't pass the required signs? Council have just rejected on basis, unknown? Not even a Oh yes there are signs! ??
Remember you do need to evidence your appeal in full
Remember that you now need to get the Local Govt Ombudsman in the loop.
Remember to use FOI act, and IF you can prove that the council and councillors know / knew of the deficiencies and still allowed ticketing to continue they have committed a VERY serious offence known as malfeasance or misfeasance in a public office. Reportable to police.
More on that here
also more general stuff here
Good luck SJ, final remember, document EVERYTHING, in writing, record of sending, record of delivery. Royal Mail Special delivery costs a bit more but more secure than Recorded Delivery which is a joke.
FiF
Cheers FiF, and well done for finding the thread too.
The council didn't say "There are signs" or anything helpful like that - they just said that I parked on a single yellow line and they reject my appeal. Very helpful, I don't deny I parked on a single yellow...
Anyway, I have discovered that there is a case (Davis -v- Royal London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea from 1998 - click here, go to Delays) which states:
"Where representations have not been considered within 56 days for no good reason (lack of resources is a doubtful reason) the Section 71(9) procedure should be followed" - s.71(9) being deemed acceptance of the representations and the refund of any penalty paid.
I did speak to the parking service who informed me that they had a lack of resources; I said it would no doubt ease the burden on their limited resources if they would simply accept my representations now rather than going to appeal, but they wouldn't have it
Worth a try...
Oh, and the Bill of Rights defence definitely doesn't work now, since De Crittenden -v- National Parking Adjudication Service (from July 2006).
Finally, I asked why they hadn't responded to my representation that the CPZ is not properly signed - they said that they didn't know the route I had taken to get into it, so couldn't do so. I pointed out that it should be signed on every route in. No response.
So overall I'm quite hopeful of success on appeal.
The council didn't say "There are signs" or anything helpful like that - they just said that I parked on a single yellow line and they reject my appeal. Very helpful, I don't deny I parked on a single yellow...
Anyway, I have discovered that there is a case (Davis -v- Royal London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea from 1998 - click here, go to Delays) which states:
"Where representations have not been considered within 56 days for no good reason (lack of resources is a doubtful reason) the Section 71(9) procedure should be followed" - s.71(9) being deemed acceptance of the representations and the refund of any penalty paid.
I did speak to the parking service who informed me that they had a lack of resources; I said it would no doubt ease the burden on their limited resources if they would simply accept my representations now rather than going to appeal, but they wouldn't have it
Worth a try... Oh, and the Bill of Rights defence definitely doesn't work now, since De Crittenden -v- National Parking Adjudication Service (from July 2006).
Finally, I asked why they hadn't responded to my representation that the CPZ is not properly signed - they said that they didn't know the route I had taken to get into it, so couldn't do so. I pointed out that it should be signed on every route in. No response.
So overall I'm quite hopeful of success on appeal.
OK no probs in helping. As said earlier you MUST evidence your route into the zone that the signing is deficient.
I haven't been into Brum centre since those earlier visits mentioned in other thread.
Also note these comments from website parking faq section linked earlier and aspecific page here.
Some points to note as I know from experience some people don't follow links and read everything.
When setting up a decriminalised system all a Council merely assures the Government that they will put all signing defects right and will not enforce defective regimes, at that point authority will be granted.
It is a matter of trust, not checking.
and
In a decriminalised system, it is the Council not you that is tested by the Adjudication Service, it is for the authority to prove they got it right, however, you will still need to evidence the errors / mistakes.
and
Set out all the defects, either in the signing, the ticketing process or the traffic order. Highlight these not only to the Adjudicator, but also the Ombudsman. Any ruling in favour of you will probably impact on other enforcement they undertook.
As a wise appellant, you should be making a tandem complaint, in the case of the Local Government Ombudsman, that should be for maladministration causing you injustice. The Ombudsman will ask what ‘injury’ you are suffering or costs you have incurred, bear in mind the penalty and stress of the process.
This dual complaint process is the route the National Parking Adjudication Service say a wise appellant (driver) will take.
:Cpl Jones:
They won't like it up 'em.
:Cpl Jones:
I haven't been into Brum centre since those earlier visits mentioned in other thread.
Also note these comments from website parking faq section linked earlier and aspecific page here.
Some points to note as I know from experience some people don't follow links and read everything.
When setting up a decriminalised system all a Council merely assures the Government that they will put all signing defects right and will not enforce defective regimes, at that point authority will be granted.
It is a matter of trust, not checking.
and
In a decriminalised system, it is the Council not you that is tested by the Adjudication Service, it is for the authority to prove they got it right, however, you will still need to evidence the errors / mistakes.
and
Set out all the defects, either in the signing, the ticketing process or the traffic order. Highlight these not only to the Adjudicator, but also the Ombudsman. Any ruling in favour of you will probably impact on other enforcement they undertook.
As a wise appellant, you should be making a tandem complaint, in the case of the Local Government Ombudsman, that should be for maladministration causing you injustice. The Ombudsman will ask what ‘injury’ you are suffering or costs you have incurred, bear in mind the penalty and stress of the process.
This dual complaint process is the route the National Parking Adjudication Service say a wise appellant (driver) will take.
:Cpl Jones:
They won't like it up 'em.
:Cpl Jones:
There are two areas in the appeal system.
The first and I believe it applies to the poster, is the straight forward issue of a PCN and the avenues that are taken up to and including the Parking Adjudicator are shown at Section 66 and Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991. There is no 56 day rule of no action vase dropped in this but as the David case states undue delay has to be explained by the LA.
But where the vehicle is imobilised different rules of appeal apply as Section 71 Road Traffic Act 1988 apply in representations in relation to removal or immobilisation of vehicles. In this appears the 56 day rule.
As FiF suggests gather the evidence of non signing, the area is within the Order
http://tinyurl.com/ydfs7w
and continue with the appeal through to the Adjudicator. I seem to recall they do look with favour on protracted representations by the LA which very apparent in this case.
dvd
The first and I believe it applies to the poster, is the straight forward issue of a PCN and the avenues that are taken up to and including the Parking Adjudicator are shown at Section 66 and Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991. There is no 56 day rule of no action vase dropped in this but as the David case states undue delay has to be explained by the LA.
But where the vehicle is imobilised different rules of appeal apply as Section 71 Road Traffic Act 1988 apply in representations in relation to removal or immobilisation of vehicles. In this appears the 56 day rule.
As FiF suggests gather the evidence of non signing, the area is within the Order
http://tinyurl.com/ydfs7w
and continue with the appeal through to the Adjudicator. I seem to recall they do look with favour on protracted representations by the LA which very apparent in this case.
dvd
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff