Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi
I received the attached PCN. It was placed on the rare window. Is there any ground to appeal it?

Thank you in advance.


Google maps link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AqAMvvCLepr11h6G8

Google drive to download pcn details: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Z_wSWEsTKXQgHBOr7LHA9p-taw5z07Xl?usp=sharing

We've seen this location before, and the problem for us is that GSV is way out-of-date, once you drive in (virtually of course !!), the last trip by the GSV camera van was 2015 at the entrance to Hanover Avenue: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Acgsjj2gZdWnE3yJ8
and no "Permit Zone"signs are present.

Normally, for Permit Only parking, visitors can obtain a day permit from the resident being visited. These can be either paper-based scratch-out cards, or virtual ones obtained using the council website.
So, were you visiting anybody on that street ?

The street directly opposite Hanover Avenue has a later GSV view of 2022, in which one can see it is virtually all permit bays, but individually signed.  Clearly the attractiveness of this area's location to the Docklands Light Railway station West Silvertown, plus bus services on Silvertown Way was too attractive for commuters wanting free parking, so daytime parking restrictions have been imposed. In London, if unrestricted and free parking seems too good to be true, then it IS too good to be true.

Here is the relevant regulation concerning service of a PCN by a CEO: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/9/made

If you can go back you could look at how good or not the entry signage is and also if repeater signs are there in the zone.

These decisions suggest it could be won if Newham doesn't supply good evidence but the adjudicator needs to be led.

--------

Hanover Avenue
Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit

--------

2240177742

The appellant did not attend the hearing arranged for 21 May and I have decided his appeal on the basis of correspondence and exhibits sent to this tribunal.

I have accepted the officer decision to decision to issue a penalty charge notice on the unattended car was justified. The penalty charge is payable as the vehicle was in a resident's parking place without the necessary permit.

I have accepted the limitation to RDW permit holders was sufficiently indicated by signage stating "Permit holders parking only past this point Mon-Sun 8am - 6.30pm.

I have been unable to accept the appellant argument that the location where ticketed was reasonably interpreted as an area that did not require a permit on account of being an area for delivery vehicles or otherwise exempt from the need to have a RDW permit.

Earlier opportunity for discount has expired and cannot now be reset.

--------

2220181135

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.

--------

2190346141

Mr Christie attended the appeal hearing. He appeals against the Penalty Charge Notice issued to his vehicle and the removal for an alleged contravention on 9 June 2019 in Hanover Avenue.

Hanover Road is within the Royal Docks West Resident Parking Zone which requires permits to be displayed.

Mr Christie went to the area to participate in an event in Wake Docklands. He followed the satellite navigation to Hanover Avenue and entered the road at Britannia Gate. Hanover Avenue has commercial premises on the other side of the road with parking areas and a residential area as well.

The only signs indicating a permit was required for vehicles beyond that point is placed on either side of the road very near the entrance to Hanover Avenue. There are no repeater signs and no evidence of a Tow Away sign present. The signs appear to cover the whole area of the Parking Zone. No signs are present at the entrance to either Capulet Mews or Fitzwilliam Mews.

Mr Christie drove down the road some 179 yards and parked his vehicle. He noted the two bays to his right has ZIP notices. No other signs were visible and no sign was placed on the wall in the space used by Mr Christie or the adjacent space.

Mr Christie has raised issues about ownership of the land he was parked on but I have decided this is not relevant as such to the issue I deal with today.

It is incumbent on all enforcement authorities to ensure there is clear and unambiguous signage that allows drivers using the road and the surrounding area, to know exactly what restrictions are in operation at any given time. Having missed the two small signs at the entrance Mr Christie was not aware of the restrictions. He noted signs for ZIP cards so did not use those spaces and he also noted a house which appeared to have its own parking space although no sign was present on the wall.

Whilst it is incumbent on drivers to look for signs regarding parking restrictions I am satisfied Mr Christie did so. He is not required to go down and retrace his route to ensure he can park in the area. He walked from his vehicles to the Docklands and did not see any other sign indicating it was permit only area. It appears the enforcement authority allow Zip Cars to sign a bay but no sign is placed to enforce the signs at the entrance of the road.

Taking all the evidence into account I am satisfied the area was not sufficiently signed. It is unreasonable for an enforcement authority to rely on one sign at the entrance to a large area without adding either repeaters signs or to sign each parking bay. If the Authority permit a car company to sign their reserved area there is also a reasonable expectation the Authority would sign the other bays with a notice indicating a permit was required. In addition the enforcement authority should also indicate that vehicles may be removed. There is no evidence of any such sign within the area. The appeal is allowed on the grounds there was insufficient signage to give validity to the penalty charge.

-----------

2190194440

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a resident's parking place in Hanover Avenue at 1.15pm on 30 March 2019 without displaying a valid permit.

Mr Anifowose says that there were no signs restricting parking where his car was parked. The library images from the Council show, however, that there is a sign attached to a post on both sides of the road at the entrance to Hanover Avenue. The signs warn motorists that there is permit holder only parking "beyond this point" during the controlled hours of 8am to 6.30pm Mondays to Sundays. I am satisfied from this evidence that the restrictions are properly signed.

Mr Anifowose says that he was feeling drowsy and sick. He says that he parked up the car to find somewhere to lodge. There is no medical evidence of any condition which prevented the driver from being able to park the car in an authorised parking place. I am not satisfied that this was a situation where the vehicle was prevented from being moved by circumstances beyond the driver's control.

The power to remove the vehicle arose 30 minutes after the time of issue of the PCN. The vehicle was removed at 2.05pm.