Author Topic: Leicester, code 46 stopped where prohibited, 134 London Rd / Outside Heavenly Desserts  (Read 92 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi everyone,

I always park in this location and have never received a PCN before, this is the location:
Heavenly Desserts, Leicester, London Road
what3words: exit.dice.penny

I made sure to read the sign very clearly, which says if you park between the following times you need to pay:

Mon - Sat
9.30 am - 4 pm
3 hours
No return

I did not pay for pay and display as I parked outside these times, surely this is not a valid PCN? Or am I missing something here? Please advise how I should proceed. Please and thanks

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 16, 2024, 02:55:24 pm by cp8759 »

fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
After checking on Google Maps street view, I can see this a bit further down, which would explain the PCN, very very confusing, I did not even see these signs when I parked. What do you guys think?

Link: https://imgur.com/a/MDb4e6l

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
So GSV shows the sequence of signs and road markings from and including Chocoberry as:

Double red lines;
Part-time red route loading bay and markings:
In which sits a non-red route parking traffic sign indicating payment required and a payment machine located to the right;
Followed by a red route parking bay and non-red route traffic sign, the latter sitting on the same post as the red route sign and indicating a non-existent payment machine to its left;
Followed by the obviously peripatetic payment machine;

And a further red route bay.

I think we need clear and up to date photos.

fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
So GSV shows the sequence of signs and road markings from and including Chocoberry as:

Double red lines;
Part-time red route loading bay and markings:
In which sits a non-red route parking traffic sign indicating payment required and a payment machine located to the right;
Followed by a red route parking bay and non-red route traffic sign, the latter sitting on the same post as the red route sign and indicating a non-existent payment machine to its left;
Followed by the obviously peripatetic payment machine;

And a further red route bay.

I think we need clear and up to date photos.

Hi H C,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry but just to clarify did you want me to go back and take pictures? That's not really feasible for me.

So from what we do know, I was parked in the red route, however the signage was not visible where I parked, is there something I can appeal this PCN on? Considering I parked right next to the pay and display sign, and there was no other visible signs showing that I couldn't park there.

Thanks
« Last Edit: June 10, 2024, 11:34:35 am by fluffybunnies22 »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
The signs in GSV are incoherent and IMO unenforceable.

There cannot be non-red route traffic signs on a red route. You complied with the non-red route signs. The arrangement is chaotic on GSV.

Where are the photos of your car in 'contravention'? We must see these.

fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The signs in GSV are incoherent and IMO unenforceable.

There cannot be non-red route traffic signs on a red route. You complied with the non-red route signs. The arrangement is chaotic on GSV.

Where are the photos of your car in 'contravention'? We must see these.

Thanks for your response, just uploaded the PCN evidence here:
https://imgur.com/a/96sSTgr











What do you think? pls and thx

Edit:
it's very strange because I don't look to be in the loading only area?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2024, 02:57:34 pm by cp8759 »

fluffybunnies22

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
For anyone curious the appeal was rejected:

Thank you for contacting us in relation to the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and including some photos
We have carefully considered your challenge but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Our decision is based on Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and other relevant legislation.
You were issued a PCN for stopping on a red route. These are marked by a sign saying 'Red route' and showing the times when you are not allowed to stop. On a red route you are not allowed to stop at all. The purpose of this rule is to improve traffic flow and safety at busy times.
You mentioned the signs or road marking were inadequate. Under statutory guidance on Civil Parking Enforcement, our traffic signs and road markings follow the legal requirements and match their respective traffic orders. The place where you were parked has been visited and the signs and road markings there were correct.
Please be advised there are red route entry signs into the area and also a sign that faces oncoming traffic located at the beginning of the bay that advises of the parking restrictions in place.
We note your comments. However, on the red route, there is a sign which states No stopping from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, (19:00) pm, your PCN was issued at 18:47pm. Additionally one street can have more than one contravention applicable so you need to check the sign plates in future.
You can view photographic evidence of your case online at www.leicester.gov.uk/pcn

This forum was as helpful as a chocolate teapot, I remember pepipoo was fantastic, I guess all good things must come to an end. It's fine though, no biggie, we live and learn

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • View Profile
Quote
This forum was as helpful as a chocolate teapot, I remember pepipoo was fantastic, I guess all good things must come to an end. It's fine though, no biggie, we live and learn
I am not sure that your remark is helpful, especially as the experts here are those from Pepipoo who set up this forum when they saw Pepipoo was dying, and are all volunteers, giving their time and expertise - and you have given them less that 3 days to respond..

That said ... I see (we haven't seen the unredacted PCN dated 5th June) that this response (of which we've only seen part) from Leicester parking is to your informal challenge (which we haven't seen - which means we can't tell how well they have considered you challenge)....

Please have a read of this
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/
and post up all sides of all the paperwork to and from the Council, redacting only your name & address.
Have the Council re-offered the discount?

HCH has pointed towards possible problems with the signage - Is the last photograph at
 https://imgur.com/a/GHhfsnw
yours, Google's  or the Councils? - If it is not current you could telephone heavenly desserts (or one of the other nearby stores and ask them if they could possibly as an act of human kindness photo or tell you the wording on the sign next to the litterbin (which is mysteriously not shown in the Council photos at
https://imgur.com/a/96sSTgr.
Are there any more photos on the Council website?

https://www.heavenlydesserts.co.uk/stores/leicester
« Last Edit: June 12, 2024, 06:35:35 pm by John U.K. »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
May we see your challenge pl. At present, we don't know the degree to which this was informed by the forum

Given that your first post quoted verbatim the wording of the traffic sign visible in GSV then it is a reasonable hypothesis that the authority are being economical with the truth.

Given that the shadow of this sign is visible in one of the council's photos then IMO if you structure your representations against the NTO correctly then the burden will fall to the authority to disprove your assertion that you saw, read and complied with the traffic sign and why this has been positioned incorrectly within what the authority claim is a 'red route'.

 

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
For anyone curious the appeal was rejected:
@fluffybunnies22 well let's start with the fact that it was an informal representation, not an appeal.

This forum was as helpful as a chocolate teapot, I remember pepipoo was fantastic, I guess all good things must come to an end. It's fine though, no biggie, we live and learn
As the guidance at 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/ explains, we are all volunteers and we have no paid staff. There are only so many hours in the day that we can spend responding to threads.

On its merits, this is really a very simple case: regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires the authority to provide adequate signage, and it's ultimately up to the adjudicator to decide whether the standard of adequacy is met or not.

You have a photo that shows your car next to a sign which indicates that there is a permitted parking place subject to certain restrictions. If that pole had a sign above it with the red route restrictions, you would have seen it and would have been put on notice of the no-stopping restriction, but you weren't. Having seen what appeared to be the regulatory sign for the bay, you were under no obligation to go looking for further signs "just in case".

There is no doubt in my mind that this PCN can be beaten on an actual appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (not representations, the council won't accept they're wrong).

If however you've given up and paid because you didn't get a response from us as quickly as you thought you should, then you've probably thrown your money away for nothing, in which case the key takeaway should be to read the guidance and have a bit of patience.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

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