Free Traffic Legal Advice

UPDATE:

See Newham's reply below.

The one thing that stood out for me is "Motorists are expected to check what restrictions are in force BEFORE LEAVING THEIR VEHICLES UNATTENDED." - That is precisely what I did, and there were no signs indicating restrictions within sight.

As always, I'd like to hear your opinions on whether I have a strong enough defence to continue, or if I should pay the discounted amount now.

This is the reply to my informal reps. I understand that they have to re-offer the discount regardless, at this stage.
I had parked there as I was visiting an exhibition at the nearby Excel. Perhaps there were no parking restrictions the last time I'd parked here as it has been a number of years since I'd visited the excel by car.

While £65 is a tough one to swallow, £130 is obviously even harder. What are the odds of winning this at tribunal?

Not binding on another Adjudicator however this appeal on the London Tribunals site supports your case. It seems to be the only recent case concerning the area where you parked. It's about the lack of signage in the area where you parked.

The sign shown in your rejection letter, the only sign that you passed, is presumably situated on the start of Hanover Avenue at it's junction with the Britannia Village roundabout? Are you able to check? If so please take your own pictures of the sign(s). GSV predates the signs so doesn't help.


Case Details
Case reference   2220181135
Appellant   
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   SH65 BAD
PCN Details
PCN   PN33370025
Contravention date   06 Feb 2022
Contravention time   09:33:00
Contravention location   Hanover Avenue
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date   
Decision Date   19 May 2022
Adjudicator   Anju Kaler
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons   The vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice and subsequently removed. The Appellant complains about the lack of adequate signage of the restrictions.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs show the close-up of one sign that restricts parking to permit holders “beyond this point”. There are no notes telling me where this sign is located. The Notice of Rejection states “There are signs at the beginning of the road where you parked…” The Case Summary says, “there are clear signs at the entrance of Hanover Avenue as photographed by the Civil Enforcement Officer".
Since the Appellant disputes the signage is clear, I adjourned the case and asked the council to provide a site plan showing: 1. Which areas are restricted for residents. 2. Where all resident bay signs are posted. 3. The location of the sign photographed by the CEO. 4. Where this vehicle was parked.
There has been no response.
I do not find on the evidence before me that the restriction is adequately signed. One small sign, wherever it has been placed, is not sufficient to mark a restriction that applies in this entire area.
Authority Response

OP, you're not at Tribunal yet, there's the important formal NTO stage yet to be negotiated.

IMO, it's premature to concern yourself with adjudication, the question is whether you could succeed at the NTO stage and, if not, would the authority re-offer the discount again.

As regards the decision referred to, IMO there is nothing in this which would lead to the conclusion that the adjudicator considered the signage to be inadequate. Rather the appellant 'disputes the signage is clear', which is capable of many interpretations. And as neither the appellant nor the council had put hard evidence in front of the adj the case was adjourned and determined because the council didn't respond. We could speculate what might have happened had they done so, but I don't see that this would be useful.

OP, let's try and nail one point: are you able to arrange for the location of all signs to be identified and plotted on a simple diagram? If not, then should you* decide to continue, you must put this to the authority in formal reps. Not just as a statement e.g. your signs are inadequate etc, but by posing a question which requires them to respond by identifying where these are and, if only at the gateway, why the council chose to place the barest minimum permissible** in theory, but insufficient in practice given the size of the area and situation in which the gateway signs have been placed.

* - are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
**- see s.13.10 of the Traffic Signs Manual which, although not law, is recommended practice and the authority may, and should, be challenged on this where there is a significant departure from its recommendations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

UPDATE: I've attached pics of NtO below.

I know I only have a few days left to make representations so hoping someone can still help me.

I've re-read all the above replies and wondering what would be the best grounds for making reps. on?

I'm not sure you'd need to change much, if anything, from the previous draft.

I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.

Does the 28 day counter start on the stated date the NtO is posted?

If so, I submitted my reps on day 29.

Is this going to be an issue?

I just realised I might’ve submitted my reps a day after the deadline.

You haven't submitted representations late, the deadline was 8 February.