cs Sunderland City Council Case Summary 1. Appellant Details NPAS appeal reference ‘SX05141D ‘Appellant's full name Mr. N Herron Appellant's address 12 Frederick Street Sunderland ee a SR11NA 2. Incident Details ie Penalty Charge Notice number ‘$X18000728 Issue date 20/12/2006 Issue day “Wednesday Issue time (24 hour clock) 15:00 Vehicle registration M3NAH Location Frederick Street Parking Attendant number 261 Contravention code ot c Contravention description parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours Vehicle clamped? L N/A Time: Vehicle removed? N/A Time: 3. Penalty and other charges Full penalty charge £ 60.00 Reduced penalty charge £ 30.00 Release charge N/A Storage charge N/A ‘Amount paid £ 0.00 Date payment received ‘Amount outstanding £ 60.00 4. Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (Order title The City of Sunderland (South Sunderland) (Waiting/Loading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003 - Item 105 Amendment(s) Article(s) relied upon 7(@&b) Schedule(s) relied upon Summary Tick to confirm that TRO. is enclosed L] The Order States: No Waiting Mon — Sat 8am — 6pm’ Nothing in Article 2 of this Order shall render it unlawful to ‘cause or permit any vehicle to wait in the lengths of road specified therein for so long as may be necessary to enable:- (a) a person to board or alight from the vehicle (b) goods to be loaded onto or unloaded from the vehicle version 1.3 Page 1 iia The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Regulations 4(2), 5(1), 5(4), 5(5), 5(6)5. Ownership Information DVLA registered keeper: Ne If details different from eats appellant details above. Address | Ifappellant not DVLA keeper, explain why Notice to Owner sent to appellant. If keeper relies on ground that vehicle on hire, include copy hire agreement if available 6. Documentary Evidence Description Date(s) (if applicable) Page number(s) —_| Case summary 415 Copy Penalty Charge Notice 20/42/2006 6 Copy Parking Attendant’s notebook rr PCN computer notes Copy Pre NTO letters and call notes, in| Email to NCP dated 8 date order 08/01/07 Pee ete Reply from NCP dated | 9 07/02/2007 Copy Notice to Owner or Vehicle Release | 02/03/2007 & 18/09/2007 | 10/11 — 12/43 Receipt Copy representations | Copy other pre-Notice of Rejection Charge Certificate dated | 14 correspondence 21/08/2007 Telephone call 15 30/08/2007 Incoming letter dated 16 | 24/08/2007 Reply to incoming letter | 17 dated 18/09/2007 with an attached 2" Notice to ‘Owner J Incoming letter dated 18 18/09/2007 Reply to letter dated 19 18/09/2007 Copy Notice of Rejection 30/10/2007 20/22 Case progression summary ‘Copy machine maintenance records I DVLA VO5 response/ourrent keeper 08/02/2007 23 details Photographs Photographs taken at the | 24 [ time of issue i CPZ signs location plan | Appendix 1 L __|and Index Version 15 PagePhotographs CPZ photographs taken | Appendix 2 E on 03/04/2006 Photographs CPZ photographs taken | Appendix 3 on 12/06/2007 Adjudicators Decision _| Appendix 4 Copy TRO (if presenting new TRO — see | Section 4) 7. Submissions Summary of Appellant's Submissions The appellants grounds of appeal are: the alleged contravention did not occur and the Traffic Regulation Order was invalid. || The appellant stated in his email to National Car Parks dated 8" January 2007 (page 8) 1am sure that multiple choice for the colour of the vehicle (your PA has recorded it as gold or silver) is not allowed. Please confirm that the PCN will be cancelled May | suggest an appointment at Specsavers?” Rachel Watson telephoned Sunderland City Council on the 30" August 2007 @ 14:17pm (page 15) to enquire why the Notice to Owner was not sent on this ticket on the 24" August. She called back on the 30" August to chase this up. The appellant stated in the letter to the Council dated 24" August 2007 (page 16) as a result of receiving the Charge Certificate “In relation to the Charge Certificate copy enclosed, please note that a Notice to Owner was sent to you, however | have received no Notice of Rejection. It will be my intention to file a Statutory Declaration if you intend to proceed with this matter. You may wish to follow-up my informal representation, sent to NCP by e-mail on 08" January 2007 which, upon checking my records received neither a response from NCP nor Sunderland City Council Please find enclosed a copy of the PCN and the informal representation. | would be grateful for clarification as to how you intend to proceed with this matter.” The appellant wrote to the Council on the 18" September 2007 (page 18) and stated * Please find enclosed a copy of the letter and enclosures which was sent to Mr Phil Barrett of Development and Regeneration on 24" August 2007. “| have yet to receive an acknowledgement or response which | find unacceptable especially when we are dealing with matters which are penal in consequence. | would be grateful for a response by return”. The appellant has also indicated in the NPAS grounds of appeal form “evidence will be supplied if Sunderland choose to contest. This PCN was issued in Dec 06 will insist on the Parking Attendant called as a witness”. Version 1.3 oe Page 3Council’s Submission Vehicle registration M3 NAH was observed by the Parking Attendant on Wednesday 20" December 2006 parked on a single yellow line in Frederick Street, Sunderland. The vehicle was first observed at 14:54 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 15:00. The Parking Attendant has indicated in the notes that the vehicle was parked outside of the dentist (os dentist), there was no notes displayed in the vehicle (nn), no dispensation, or documents (no dis-docs), no sign of loading or unloading (nsi/ul), all windows (awc), visor, interior checked (int) and driver not seen (dns). (please see PA notes — page 7 and) photographs taken at time of issue — page 24). National Car Parks replied to the appellants email dated 8" January 2007 (page 9) and confirmed “The reason for the rejection may be summarised as follows:- This Council permits a motor vehicle to be parked on a yellow line providing active loading or unloading is taking place. Your vehicle was seen parked unattended on a yellow line by the Parking Attendant and no loading or unloading was seen to occur. The Penalty Charge Notice was therefore correctly issued”. The appellant makes reference to the attendants notes that the vehicle colour was gold or silver but it is not considered that this invalidates the PCN. ‘A Notice to Owner was sent to the appellant dated 2" March (page 10/11), as no formal representation was received in relation to this, the Council served a Charge Certificate dated 21th August 2007 (page 14). The Council replied to the appellants letter dated 24" August 2007 (page 16) on the 18" September 2007 (page17) and confirmed a Notice to Owner was forwarded to 12 Frederick Street on the 2™ March 2007.However on this occasion, given the circumstances the Council exercised discretion and agreed to re-issue the Notice to Owner to give the appellant a further opportunity to either pay or challenge the PCN. A second Notice to Owner dated 18" September 2007 (page 12/13) was attached to the letter which gave the appellant 28 days from the date of service to either make payment or to submit a formal representation The Council replied to the appellants letter dated 18" 2007 (page 18) on the 24" September 2007 (page 19) and confirmed that responses to his correspondence of the 18" and 19" September had been hand delivered to his home address on the 19" September 2007. jowever, it is contravention did not occur and the designation order was invalid As confirmation, the Council permits a private motor vehicle to be parked on a single yellow line to enable a person to board or alight from the vehicle or goods to be loaded onto or unloaded from the vehicle. This was explained to the appellant in the Notice of Rejection letter dated 30" October 2007 (page 20/22). The Traffic Regulation Order relating to this length of Frederick Street is contained within the City of Sunderiand (South Sunderland) (Waiting/Loading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003 Item 105 as detailed in section 4 of this summary, therefore a valid Traffic Regulation Order was in place on the date of issue. This was explained to the| appellant in the Notice of Rejection letter dated 30" October 2007 (page 20/22). Version 1.3 Page 4Frederick Street is contained within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). CPZ’s can be made up of many Traffic Regulation Orders that are introduced at varying times. Waiting restrictions are introduced by Local Authorities under powers contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The City Centre CPZ restricts waiting between Monday ~ Saturday 8am — 6pm and there is no requirement to provide repeater sign plates along lengths of highway within the CPZ! that are similarly restricted. When entering Sunderland City Centre there are controlled parking zone signs (in accordance with TSRGD #663) located on the access routes into the city informing motorists they are entering a Controlled Parking Zone. Please see CPZ location plan and index (Appendix 1), photographs of the CPZ signs in each location taken in April 2007 (Appendix 2) and June 2007 (Appendix 3). Please note there have been no reports of missing, defective or damaged signs during this period. Within this zone it is not a requirement that yellow lines are accompanied by a restriction plate (#639), The CPZ signs were erected in Sunderland prior to the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement on the 3" February 2003. The signs are inspected on a monthly basis and were in place at the time the above Penalty Charge Notice was issued In addition, the validity of the Councils CPZ was considered by Mr Andrew Keenan at a hearing on 3" October 2006, into a number of appeals made by the appellant against numerous PCN's. Evidence was presented to the hearing by the appellant. The Council also submitted evidence. The Adjudicator concluded that a CPZ did exist and was properly signed. For your convenience please find attached a copy of the Adjudicators decision (Appendix 4) In view of the above information the Council submits that the alleged parking contravention did occur and that there was a valid Traffic Regulation Order in place| at the time of issue and therefore request that the appeal be dismissed. sot Authorising Signature Date 12/12/07 Print name PJ Barrett Version 13 Page 5