0 Members and 82 Guests are viewing this topic.
Thank you - I did read that page, and so it looks like I should go ahead and make a representation, as I will not receive anything in the post.I'd like some advice on whether there are any technical challenges I can make on the PCN?If not, whether or not the obscured signage (on both entry to the zone and in/around the parking spot), plus the fact the CEO has evidenced a sign 100m away - are these all strong grounds for an appeal? Or if anything else I should be considering or adding.Thanks!
Dear Sir or Madam,All photos referred to are in the attached word document and labelled with a heading.I wish to challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.I am not local to this area and am unfamiliar with the parking restrictions that may apply. I, therefore, have to rely on the signage in place to be informed of any restrictions.The alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction was not clearly signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).The route I took into Paget Road was from Ilford Lane → Jersey Road → Lowbrook Road → Paget Road. At no point along this route were the restriction signs visible or legible:• The entry signs to Jersey Road were defaced (photo 1)• All signs along Jersey Road were defaced (photos 2 - 5).• On Paget Road, the sign adjacent to where the vehicle was parked was facing the wrong way and defaced (photos 6–7).• On Lowbrook Road, the only other visible sign from this location was also defaced (photo .• On Lowbrook Road, the next nearest sign within walking distance was also defaced (photo 9).I note that your Civil Enforcement Officer’s evidence has photographed a sign roughly 100 metres from where the vehicle was parked (photo 10 which the CEO produced as evidence). I have attached photo 13 which shows the location of the 5 closest signs, circled in green, to the parking space - all of which were defaced. The CEO had to walk 100m (photo 14 showing the distance to this sign) to the sign marked "number 4" in order to produce a photo for evidence. This is further confirmed by the timestamp on the photo which is 3 minutes after the photo of the vehicle was taken, showing they needed to walk some considerable distance.I also note that the CEO seems to have intentionally not photographed the defaced sign right next to the parked vehicle. The angle of the photo they have taken conveniently leaves this sign out of shot (photo 11). You can refer to my own photo 15 and photo 16 showing the defaced sign next to the vehicle. This demonstrates that the signage within the vicinity of the vehicle was inadequate.The TSRGD and associated case law and adjudicator decisions confirm that restrictions must be signed so they are clear, either upon entering a zone, or at the point of parking. Motorists cannot be expected to walk several minutes to discover a restriction, particularly when the nearest signs are obscured. As this is a zone where restrictions apply, the entry into the zone can be relied on to enforce those restrictions. However, as my evidence shows, this sign was also defaced.In light of the above, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, as the contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage.
