Memorandum by the
1998 (S.I. 1998/2233)
1. This Memorandum is submitted
to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in response to
their letter of 11th November 1998 in which they ask
for an explanation of the following point arising in connection
with the above Statutory Instrument.
2. The Committee seek an
explanation as follows:
requires the proper officer to send to the parking authority any
direction extending the time limit for appealing. Please explain
why no corresponding provision is made for informing the appellant
who has requested the extension.
3. The provisions concerned
relate to the initiation of an appeal. This is done by the appellant's
sending a notice to the proper officer. That notice has to be
received within a certain time limit imposed either in section
72(1) of or paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Act
1991. In both cases the time limit is 28 days or such longer period
as the parking adjudicator may allow.
4. If a notice of appeal
is sent outside the 28 day time limit, regulation 3(3) requires
that the notice of appeal is to include a statement of reasons
on which the appellant relies for justifying the delay. If such
reasons are given, the parking adjudicator is required to treat
them as a request for an extension of the time limit.
5. If the parking adjudicator
decides that the time limit should not be extended the notice
of appeal will be invalid since it is made out of time in terms
of section 72 of or paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 to the Act.
6. A notice may be invalid
either because it is made out of time or because it does not comply
with the requirements of regulation 3. Regulation 4(1) must be
construed as applying only to notices which are valid and thus
are received in accordance with regulation 3. A notice which
is invalid for time limit reasons could be cured by a direction
of the adjudicator.
7. If a notice is invalid
for whatever reason, the view is taken that action on that notice
cannot be taken in terms of regulation 4. That regulation is triggered
by receipt of a notice "in accordance with regulation 3".
Accordingly the requirement to send to the appellant an acknowledgement
of receipt of a notice applies only in relation to a notice which
is so received by the proper officer. Such an acknowledgement
will itself therefore inform the appellant that his or her notice
of appeal is to be proceeded with. If the notice is not to be
proceeded with under regulation 4 the appellant will as a matter
of practice be informed accordingly.
8. Regulation 4(1)(c) requires
that the parking authority receive a copy of the notice of appeal
so that they are in a position to comply with other duties imposed
on them by the Regulations. If that notice were to be apparently
invalid for time limit reasons the copy of the direction makes
it clear to the parking authority that the invalidity has been
cured. The appellant does not require a copy of the direction
since the acknowledgement of receipt sent to him or her under
regulation 4(1)(a) relates only to valid notice and is thus confirmation
that the notice is to be proceeded with.
9. These Regulations were
intended to align as closely as possible with existing Regulations
for London - the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London)
Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/1202). The provisions concerned
are in similar terms in those Regulations.