Friday, May 28, 2010

Unlawful Traffic Regulation Orders in Brighton ... Massive National Implications

The significance of these two cases will become apparent in the coming weeks and is likely to impact on many councils across the country as they too have followed the same 'industry standard' rather than lawful process for creating TROs.

As many council officers read this they will start checking their TRO drafting process and realise that they too have been wrongly advised.

If there is no lawful TRO then no financial liability arises. Makes Mr. Moss's challenge against Bolton and their refusal to refund monies to motorists fined unlawfully all the more interesting.

One provision in the TRO subjected the entire length of Buckingham Street to a
no waiting at any time restriction (double yellow lines). Another provision sought
to superimpose a residents-only permit scheme operating between 9am and
8pm. Parts of the road were marked with parking bays and the remainder with
double yellow lines. The PCN was issued under code 01 to a permit holder who
parked half in a bay and half on the double yellow line.
Held: The restriction could not be enforced. The TRO as drafted did not achieve
the council’s intentions. The two provisions were mutually inconsistent,
confusing and differed from the street signage. Indeed the effect of resolving the
conflict would be to subject the parking bays to the double yellow line restriction
outside the hours 9am and 8pm. This, clearly, could not be right; the bays were
intended for permit holders only between 9am and 8pm and for everybody at
other times.
Appeal allowed.

Exactly the same point arose and the adjudicator followed the decision in
BH05833K. The council sought to distinguish the two cases on the facts and the
provisions of the TRO were again considered in detail by the reviewing
Held: The TRO was defective and ambiguous. The adjudicator made it clear
that the objection was not to the provision of a hierarchy of layered provisions in
principle, merely to the way the council had gone about it in this particular TRO.

He said: “As is referred to in the definition of a CPZ the Council are entitled to
provide parking places such as these in a road which has an underlying NWAAT
restriction. However it is the manner in which the Council have sought to
achieve this by the TRO that is the issue in this and similar cases.”

Appeal allowed

1 comment:

Sohail Rahim said...

I've been issued with two pcn's for two separate cars parked on the same street (Windsor Street, Brighton).
BH59155501 and BH59155498.

- Both cars had valid visitor permits displayed in the window

- Both pcn's were issued by the same warden (Brighton - badge 719).

- Both pcn's are invalid, and I've appealed both, but they've rejected both appeals.. I went in to Hove town hall to talk to them about it. Both the ladies at the parking services desk looked up the pictures taken by the warden and agree that they can see where the tickets were displayed.

- I've been in and showed them pictures I've taken of the cars after discovering the penalty notices.

- The traffic warden (719) is obviously very good at what he does, and has attempted to take MISLEADING pictures, trying to hide the visitor permits in the shadows. VERY CLEVER, but you can still see the tickets in the shadows.

- The pictures I've taken, when compared to the ones their traffic warden took, show clearly how he's tried to hide them... clever bugger!!

Blog Archive

only search Neil Herron Blog