On ** I parked in a parking bay o/s no. 104/106 Windermere Avenue;
This parking bay extends from 104 to 126 Windermere Avenue;
There are 2 lamp columns situated within the bay, these being numbered 26 and 27;
Neither of these carries a traffic sign regarding parking neither is such a sign displayed anywhere within the bay.
At ** on ** a PCN was attached to my car alleging the following contravention: ********;
On *** I made informal representations that the contravention did not occur which were rejected by letter dated *** which gave as its main reason:
The PCN was issued because the car was parked in a permit space or zone without displaying a valid virtual or clearly displaying a valid physical permit.
It therefore falls to the authority to prove that I was parked at a location which required the display etc. of a permit. Its evidence in this regard is a sign stating 'Permit holders in marked bays on event days 10 am - Midnight'. It is an irony which cannot be lost on the authority that this sign (which it must be remembered is its evidence) is situated on lamp column no. 25 which is not even situated in the parking bay, but on a lamp column 30m away from the location.
Of course it lies with the authority as judges in their own cause for the moment to reject these representations in the misguided belief that the provisions of s18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedure) Regs do not apply.
I would suggest that an adjudicator would take a different view.
If the authority wishes to enforce the bay o/s 104-126 Windermere Avenue then it is required to place the required traffic sign(s) within the bay (either or both of the otherwise unused lamp columns would suffice) with, in this case, reference to 'Event days'. Without such signage any references to 'Event days' on CPZ signs are irrelevant and cannot as a matter of law create the basis for enforcement of a penalty at the location.
The contravention did not occur.
A bit OTT perhaps, but their complacency and arrogance gets my goat.