Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Forum members,

I hope you are well.

The driver, a Blue Badge holder, parked on double yellow line in Canham Rd, W3 (Ealing borough) believing not to be any restrictions for loading/ unloading as there are no signposts or any kerb signs indicating such restrictions.

Looking at the time indicated in the BB and pictures taken by the traffic warden, it seems that the warden had issued the PCN within very brief moment the car being parked (10:30am to 10:31am).

I include the following:
PCN ref - AO09495858;
VRN - LV68UTB;
and the link below so that pictures taken by the warden can inform your views of potential appeal grounds.



My personal view is that Councils and their subcontractors issue such PCNs hoping and knowing that not many would appeal and even if those who appeal, some will be discouraged to continue appealing to the Tribunal by the threat of having to pay the full amount if their appeal is not upheld.

Thank you for your invaluable views.

Kind regards,

Almep13

Kerb blips are there on GSV, but VERY worn.


Is a sign needed for double-blips ?

Good evening Stamfordman and Incandescent,

That is my view too - no sign and no double blips to indicate contravention 02 for loading/ uploading in restricted area.

Thank you for your views, I appreciate it.

Kind regards,

Almep13

Next stage is the notice to owner. I would wait for that and we'll help you make the representation.

Is the logbook up to date with correct name and address.

Good evening,

I hope the hot weather is somehow bearable.

I wrote an email to Ealing Parking Services questioning their decision and claim of double stripes on the kerb.

They responded iterating the same claim. I attach the pictures of the latest response.

I'm letting it pass by until they issue Notice to the Keeper.

Thank you for your views and take care of yourselves.

https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#8c0MJLL

https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#Bit7Z0c

Kind regards,

Alemp13

Your point (ii) is not correct. Procedural impropriety is defined in the Regulation 2(2) and 2(3) :-

(2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—

(a)the TMA 2004,
(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or
(c)these Regulations,

in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) such a failure includes, in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than—

(a)in accordance with the conditions subject to which, or
(b)at the time or during the period when,

it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.

OP, unfortunately 'substantially compliant' is subjective and there will be views. But for you only one view counts, and you cannot ask that person here.

For your benefit, I will try and break down the issue.

IMO, the matter wholly turns on whether the council has placed 'on or near the road .. such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;' because if an adjudicator disagrees then the burden on the council of proving the contravention has not been met and your appeal would be allowed.

In this case the 'traffic signs' are DYL and double kerb blips. In both cases, substantial compliance with the Traffic Signs etc.  Regs. is the standard. It is also recommended that DKB be placed between 2 and 4m apart, preferably 3m, so that in every circumstance a driver must park alongside one or 2 sets of DKB because there won't be an upright sign to consult.

Here, the authority is focusing on a single set of DKB, and if you know where to look, because it's front and centre in a photo, then arguably it's visible.

But IMO what is unarguable from their perspective is that the DKB are not as visible as the DYL and if one was looking for another marking with equal prominence, then you would be likely to not see the DKB. And given that these markings come in pairs i.e. DYL and DKB then, IMO, in order to ensure that adequate information as to the [combined] effect of the Order is made available' the council should ensure that equal prominence is given to both parts AND that the DKB are spaced as recommended in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3. I cannot see another DKB in view.

IMO, make reps but flesh out and not just state 'substantial compliance'.

Good evening Incandescent, Hippocrates, Tincombe, Stamfordman and others.

I hope you are all well and thank you so much for your views, I really appreciate.

My representation was mainly on the three points below, which can also be found on the attached links:
i) No contravention occurred;
ii) (Lack of) Restrictions on Canham Road based on list of restrictions across Ealing Borough as per its website.
iii) Unfair treatment of Blue Badge holders.

https://imgpile.com/p/bSdRplK#TwB9UKx - first part of the representation
https://imgpile.com/p/bSdRplK#4tCoZrx - 2nd part

For completeness I'm also attaching on the same post their initial decline and then the second decline following my email to Ealing Parking Services that there are no visible restrictions on Canham Road.

https://imgpile.com/p/rJWJ1SC#OuIvUI0 - first decline letter

https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#8c0MJLL - 2nd decline letter, part 1

https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#Bit7Z0c - 2nd decline letter, part 2

Thank you and have a good night.

Kind regards,

Almep13