Author Topic: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?  (Read 2466 times)

0 Members and 107 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?
« Reply #15 on: »
IMO, leave out anything to do with CPZ, it's a hare dressed as a red herring
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?
« Reply #16 on: »
Yes the lat para can go.

You can add instead

Please note that in any case no requirement to park in the bounds of a parking bay is communicated to the motorist at this location. I believe this is contrary to legislation.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?
« Reply #17 on: »
Hi all

Bromley Parking have come back and said that my reasons for the parking space are not valid and that a Parkign sign is not needed- here's the reply.

Are they correct? And if they are wrong, what do we do from here?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Re: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?
« Reply #18 on: »
This should be hopeless for them because as we've established the bays must have parking signs unless there is a bay marking that shows a single restriction operating at all times.

This is nothing to do with whether the bay is in a CPZ or not.

So I don't think the bay meets the status of one that can be defined by a traffic order and hence subject to policing of its boundary.

See what Mr Anderson says.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Bromley - PCN is this Not Parking Correctly within the markings of the bay?
« Reply #19 on: »
I would definitely carry on with this, Bexley Council are clearly just winging it hoping you'll give up and pay. If there is no sign for the bay, odds are the bay is not regulated and therefore not subject to any requirements at all.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Agree Agree x 1 View List

This should be hopeless for them because as we've established the bays must have parking signs unless there is a bay marking that shows a single restriction operating at all times.

This is nothing to do with whether the bay is in a CPZ or not.

So I don't think the bay meets the status of one that can be defined by a traffic order and hence subject to policing of its boundary.

See what Mr Anderson says.

Mr Anderson?

Mind-blowing ignorance.

I'd be tempted to reply.

Dear Sir,
PCN ******

Thank you for your letter dated **** rejecting my representations made on ***.

I have read the letter and should be grateful for clarification of your reasoning in order to inform any formal representations.

Is it the authority's position that the road markings at issue are not required to have an associated upright traffic sign to indicate the times of any parking restriction, whether payment is required and whether reserved to specified users but that any motorist should and is required to infer that the timings align with those for the adjacent yellow lines, that payment is not required and that any class of vehicle may park simply based upon the placement and content of 'controlled parking zone' signs.

Could you also explain your comment that 'You have 28 days from the date of this Notice[Notice of Rejection] to do this[that is to pay £60]'. As I understand it, a penalty charge of £60 may be paid at any time up to 14 days having expired following service of a NOR on the owner pursuant to unsuccessful formal representations having been made.

Yours...
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Thanks for this gentlemen, I will take this to appeal and also write the letter... although the reply says that they won't enter into correspondence, I am tempted to just send the letter anyway and see what they come up with...

I will update what happens!


I see you now know Mr Anderson - he knows a fairy tale when he sees one.

The next step is to wait for the NTO and make representations (not an appeal - that's when you go to the tribunal).

Are the V5C logbook name and address correct.   

You may as well send that clarification email - it will form the basis of reps if they ignore it.

Hi StamfordMan

I have already sent the email to Bromley with the exact wording.  Do they have to reply within a certain amount of time?

The V5C logbook etc are all correct. Nothing has changed in many years!

Judging by the letter's wording about the slow reply and how lax they have been, I imagine they won't!

Thanks again everyone.

They don't have to reply and may just issue the NTO in due course.
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi

does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO? I've still not heard anything!

Thank you.

Hi

does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO?

Only the people at the council know how busy they are. There's no imminent statutory deadline, so you just have to wait.

NtOs must be served within 6 months from date of alleged contravention. This essentially mimics the limit on a summons to magistrates courts of 6 months.

Hi

does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO?

Only the people at the council know how busy they are. There's no imminent statutory deadline, so you just have to wait.
er, no it's 6 months
Quote from: andy_foster
Mick, you are a very, very bad man