3. defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay  (Read 565 times)

0 Members and 182 Guests are viewing this topic.

defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« on: »
Hello

I did have a scour through this forum and found one or two related cases, also saw links to pepipoo forum but it's down sadly.

Hoping to clarify I am taking the correct approach.

Received PCN for contravention 12s - parked in a residents or shared use bay without a valid virtual permit.

The sign on the bay is defaced making the code for pay by phone illegible.
I did actually attempt to buy a ticket but it didn't go through and I had to try again later. By the time I got back to my car it had a ticket.

Mine is the red car, with the nearest sign defaced, and a photo of the sign. (Tried to upload here but couldn't get it to work sorry!)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cb5ydqx2jn4689v6o6zcp/IMG_2556.jpg?rlkey=6utm83hbkwhnrxdrhiu7ebzy6&st=3v14rego&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o4cdmhl5om2i6m0czt1mv/IMG_2554.jpg?rlkey=fdrodi9l3iyuhq021ev8lm0m1&st=svvdnlp5&dl=0

They have photographed a different sign, not sure where, I think it must be further along the road, so the 'evidence' on the PCN does not show the defaced sign.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nm03vxnanxcxq6m3gppcr/Screenshot-2024-07-24-at-10.07.01.png?rlkey=4kmml3s2ijs6q01dm0bruxqxk&st=4c2r6wuf&dl=0

The streetview of the loc is here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DLZ1AX7kh2P5cuqMA

The PCN here:
https://imgur.com/a/EQsXK4R

I was intending to send the following. I would appreciate any feedback, affirmative or otherwise!

Dear London Borough of Ealing,

Formal representations PNXXX

The contravention did not occur as the bay where the vehicle was parked was not properly signed.

The signage on the bay is defaced and therefore has made its provisions illegible. It was not clear or compliant and therefore in these circumstances no contravention occurred.

This PCN is invalid and should never have been issued.

The onus on the council is contained within Regulation 18 of Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of 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;

(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force

Please cancel the PCN.

Regards
Gw


Any comments much appreciated. Thank you so much!
Gw
« Last Edit: July 24, 2024, 10:40:44 am by gwingwyn »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #1 on: »
For meaningful advice please post both sides of the unredacted PCN and a GSV link to the location.
(see https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/  )

Your photograph of the sign does reveal (although spray painted) the location as 27290 ??

Playing devil's advocate, if you could not read the location, as the sign made you aware that payment was required, were you not under a duty to see if there was another sign governing that bay?

----
Their photograph doesn't show the location clearly either - could be 27290 or 37290 - were there any other photos on the Council site?
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #2 on: »
Have updated the post with a streetview and the PCN.

Of course, I understand the devil's advocate argument, but there wouldn't be any need for me to post here if I just went ahead and paid it on that basis. This is a request as to whether, in the case of defaced signage and the aforementioned authority provisions required, there is a case for an appeal on these terms.

I don't believe the authority is relieved of their duties to provide legible / clean and maintained signage just because I could, if I got right up close to it, be able to read it.

I'm also not given to intentionally avoiding paying for my parking. I meant to pay but it didn't go through. I have a ticket covering from 13.48 when I realised what had happened.

They of course, can & may respond as such.
Although they haven't actually cleaned those signs since 2022 as you can see from the streetview.

Best
GW
« Last Edit: July 24, 2024, 10:57:56 am by gwingwyn »
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #3 on: »
You may well struggle to overturn the PCN, because only a short distance away at the other end of the bay is another un-defaced sign, the one the CEO took a photo of: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dFW4uVy5G7KpPb338
Of course you have the right in law to take them all the way through the process up to the adjudicators. You just have to risk the full PCN penalty.

However, something in your narrative suggests you did manage to find the bay number and make payment: -
Quote
I did actually attempt to buy a ticket but it didn't go through and I had to try again later. By the time I got back to my car it had a ticket.
Can you expand on this, please.  Did you actually find the second sign and then use the number on that ? Where you still at the bay when the CEO served the PCN. We need to know the whole scenario so possible appeal arguments can be developed.
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #4 on: »
You can use the Pay By Phone system to search for 'parking nearby'
That's how I located the number.

Ultimately though - this is a procedural matter, it's not about placing an obligation on an individual to go looking for a sign. We all know it's possible to go and look for a sign, or find the number.

I am using their procedural failings to challenge them. I don't imagine I have any other grounds?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2024, 11:00:54 am by gwingwyn »
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #5 on: »
hi Incadescent.

No - I was not at the bay when the ticket was served. I had to rush to a meeting and was using my phone to pay.
Got back to my car the following day to a PCN on the windscreen.
cheers
« Last Edit: July 24, 2024, 11:10:51 am by gwingwyn »
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #6 on: »
OK, good luck ! Main point in your favour is that you did actually make payment, and for the whole day, I presume
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #7 on: »
I paid for two days actually. Not sure they take any of that into account...

and thank you - one can but try!  :)
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #8 on: »
IMO, your argument goes to mitigation only.

The law is two-fold:

What does the traffic order provide, and
What does LATOR, which you've quoted, provide.

The traffic order cannot provide for a lower level of compliance as regards signs, but may provide for a higher standard - see London Tribunals key case Campbell v Camden to see the distinction:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Campbell%20v%20Camden.doc%3B%20Suspension%20of%20controls.doc%3B%20signage.doc%3B%20requirement%20for%20compliant%20sign.doc

As you've posted at length, LATOR provides for:

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of 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;

Your position seems to be that one sign is not sufficient and a motorist is not obliged to discover the detail of parking restrictions if one of a multi-signed bay has been defaced such as to make it difficult, but not impossible, to read.

IMO, as regards LATOR you cannot succeed. Frankly one sign in the bay would be sufficient.

However, whether the traffic order imposes a higher standard we don't know. The normal wording would be to place a traffic sign within or in the vicinity of the bay.
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #9 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on July 24, 2024, 08:33:04 pm
IMO, your argument goes to mitigation only.

The law is two-fold:

What does the traffic order provide, and
What does LATOR, which you've quoted, provide.

The traffic order cannot provide for a lower level of compliance as regards signs, but may provide for a higher standard - see London Tribunals key case Campbell v Camden to see the distinction:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Campbell%20v%20Camden.doc%3B%20Suspension%20of%20controls.doc%3B%20signage.doc%3B%20requirement%20for%20compliant%20sign.doc

As you've posted at length, LATOR provides for:

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of 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;

Your position seems to be that one sign is not sufficient and a motorist is not obliged to discover the detail of parking restrictions if one of a multi-signed bay has been defaced such as to make it difficult, but not impossible, to read.

IMO, as regards LATOR you cannot succeed. Frankly one sign in the bay would be sufficient.

However, whether the traffic order imposes a higher standard we don't know. The normal wording would be to place a traffic sign within or in the vicinity of the bay.
The bay has two signs
Logged
Re: defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay
« Reply #10 on: »
goodness, my brain is spinning a little. Not sure I entirely understand what I just read.

But ultimately, do you think I probably have no grounds for appeal and should pay the PCN?

thanks :)
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. defaced sign, LB Ealing, permit / P&D bay