Manchester, code 12 parked in a residents of shared use parking, Kent Road West

As title. I was running late to an event at a local community centre, there was no parking nearby so I went to the neighbouring streets where I found some parking. Little did I know this was a residents only parking area. When I parked up, I had a quick glance at the lampposts to see if there was any restricted parking signs, and there were no signs.

It appears that there are signs however, as you enter the street. Here is a Google Maps link of the street: Google Maps Link

I did not notice this sign as I entered the street, as I was more concerned with the pedestrians crossing the road at the time.

Admittedly, there is another such sign on the street opposite where I had parked, but that sign is for that street (permit holders only PAST THIS POINT).

Do I have plausible grounds for appealing? Images of the PCN below:

Did you turn left or right into Kent Rd West ?

Councils are  under a duty in Rgulation 18 (1)(a) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,  to erect signage that is adequate for conveying the restriction to motorists: -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

They seem to think that just plonking down a couple of signs is sufficient, but many cases we see on here where appeals are won, show that is not the case. Of course it's better for them to have plenty of contraventions as the penalty money is a ice Little Earner for them, because most people just cough-up when they get one. The discount option encourages this.

I think that by keeping the second sign at Schuster Road is an error that you should use in your reps to the council, because, having missed the first sign, this one mislead you think that you were in an unrestricted street.

Part from that, the PCN looks OK to me.

The contravention code on the PCN says resident's or shared use parking place.
The code 12 is wrong if the OP parked on Kent Road West, which is a permit holders only Zone.

From the council photos;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gMeSgYXYrAUqi67oG8YUfAS1sQIcDuqW/view?usp=drivesdk

 the OP parked here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tBRP3ifqKYmMpUMb8?g_st=ac

So here's a 2023 September view, for a RH turn, showing the tree totally obscuring the RH sign.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1q9P3GqoqPRJLsBE9
and heres the view for a LH turn, again showing the sign is obscured.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dR3TGfJ822gs5Y6u5
And what month is it today ? September !!

I suggest the OP returns to the site and gets some photos to hopefull show the same signs obscured, and that is why he missed them.

@Incandescent I turned left in to the road.

Thanks, I will go back to the site to have a look at the signage!

I have just been back to the site and yes, the sign is indeed obscured by the tree. See pic below:



As I said, I was more concerned about what was happening on the road than actively looking out for a sign as I entered the road. So I feel it's unfair that I've been penalised for this, especially as I didn't see any signs on the lampposts near where I parked, which is where I would normally expected to see "restricted parking" signs.

Can someone kindly guide me on how I should go about appealing this?

What you do now is submit an informal challenge to the PCN, stating that you turned left into Kent Road West, and saw no sign as you turned. When you drove down the road, you saw a sign at the entrance to Schuster Road which advised it was permits only on that street so assumed that Kent Road West had no restriction. You therefore parked near Schuster Road and was astonished to find a PCN on your car when you returned.
Include your photo of the sign obscuration.

Don't expect immediate cancellation, as councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise revenue, so they refuse virtually all informal challenges,  knowing from years of experience that most people then cough-up to get the discount. In this game, you have to be prepared to forego the discount if you want to win. Sorry, but that is the way it is and has been since 1991.

Post your draft reps here for a review before you submit them.  If you are willing to take them all the way to adjudication, you must be the owner of the car and hold the V5C or a family member holds it, and can give you a letter of authority. Legal responsibility for PCNs lies with the owner not the driver. So is the V5C up to date for name and address.

Some thoughts.

As per Incandescent, When you drove down the road, you saw a sign at the entrance to Schuster Road which advised it was permits only on that street so assumed that Kent Road West had no restriction.


Perfectly reasonable, but I'd put it stronger.

I refer the authority to their evidence photo no.5. This clearly shows the reflection of a a Permit Parking Area gateway sign sited at the junction of Kent Road West and Schuster Road. I saw this sign and therefore did not enter Schuster but instead parked outside that permit area, as can be seen in your photo and assumed that where I parked was not restricted.

The PCN alleges that I was actually parked in the same 'Permit Parking Area' and indeed after I found the PCN I discovered the same signs at the junction of *** and Kent Road West, signs which I had not seen when turning left from ****. Not only did I see the sign on the nearside(the one on the offside is not readable other than if a motorist turns right from ***), I could see why I missed it when I entered the road: it was obscured by the tree in the garden of no. ***, a tree whose lower branches in full leaf must always obscure this sign. I therefore feel that I am probably not alone in being caught by the council's failure to make this sign readable 365 and 24/7.

In any event, either this pair of signs or those at the junction of Schuster are not lawful i.e. they are not placed to indicate the effect of an Order. This point cannot be argued by the council because it is simply a matter of correct legal interpretation.

A Permit Parking Area is defined by Schedule 1 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations as:

an area—
(a)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign provided for at item 5 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1

I would draw your attention to the word 'entrance'. The council may not as a matter of law place such signs other than at the 'entrance' to a PPA. So, which is the entrance, Kent Road West or Schuster? It cannot be both, and yet both are present and the Schuster ones are clear at all times. Please do not suggest in any reply that these signs may be used as 'repeater' signs because they may not. If the council wishes to place such signs then then the prescribed form is at Item 4 of Part 4 of Schedule 4 to the regulations.

Assuming that there is a PPA in the vicinity, then it has not been signed as required. Therefore the council has not met its duty under the Local Authorities Traffic Order regulations and the PCN must be cancelled.

Hi all,

I received a reply back from Manchester City Council, following my appeal. This is what is says:

You were given a PCN for parking in a residents parking scheme without displaying a valid permit or showing a valid e-permit.

Where you were parked is within the boundary of the Rusholme & Moss Side Past this Point residents permit scheme.

A past this point permit scheme means that to park on a street, you must have a valid permit for the vehicle. These streets are indicated by signs at the entrance; however, they do not have marked parking bays, allowing for flexible parking for permit holders during designated times. Non-permit holders can only park for a limited time in specific, marked bays within the scheme.

I acknowledge the photograph you have provided showing overgrowth in the vicinity of the sign. However, after carefully reviewing the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the signage was in place and would have been clearly visible to motorists as they approached the junction and made the left turn onto Kent Road West.

A Past the point sign is in place at the street you parked in and as your vehicle did not have a valid permit the PCN was issued correctly.

I have carefully considered your case and I am satisfied that your PCN was issued correctly, and as such, I have taken the decision not to cancel it.

So, they've rejected the appeal, claiming that the signage is "clearly visible". I obviously dispute this. Can I further appeal this (if so, how?) or is this the end of the matter?

I acknowledge the photograph you have provided showing overgrowth in the vicinity of the sign. However, after carefully reviewing the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the signage was in place and would have been clearly visible to motorists as they approached the junction and made the left turn onto Kent Road West.

What utter, utter tosh.  How that person can sleep at night putting out dross like this one has to wonder. But I suppose its a living albeit immoral.

Can I further appeal this (if so, how?) or is this the end of the matter?

Yes, of course you can, but you must be the owner, because the next stage is service of a Notice to Owner to the person and address on the V5C Registration Certificate for the car. Under the legislation, that goes back to 1991, (yes, a long time ago !!), the owner of a vehicle has legal responsibility for PCNs, (payment or appeal).
The discount option is lost at this stage, so if you decide to go down this route, you accept you forego the discount and be prepared to take t hem to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Your case for obscured signage is unanswerable for me, especially when that sign within the zone is still there.

IMO.

The regs provide:
3. Permit identifiers may be added either to the right of the symbol or proximate to “permit holders”

4. “Permit holders parking only past this point” may be varied to “Resident permit holders parking only past this point”, “Permit holders parking only in” and a street name or “Resident permit holders parking only in” and a street name


So, 'Rusholme and Moss Side..' is irrelevant because it cannot be conveyed to a motorist because it's not permitted to include it in the sign.

The signs at the junction of *** and KRW and KRW and Schuster are identical and neither includes a permit identifier. Therefore either the Schuster or KRW signs (or possibly both) have been placed unlawfully because it's the SAME PPA which can only have a single entrance in this arrangement of streets.

Objective fact:
Identical PPA signs are placed at the junction of ** and KRW and KRW and Schuster.
These state: 'Permit holders parking only past this point Mon-Fri 10am -10pm'

I turned left and did not see the KRW signs.
But I saw the Schuster sign and parked outwith this area in KRW.
The authority's case is that KRW is subject to the same restriction as Schuster. But if this is the case then the Schuster signs are unlawful(a point ignored by the authority in my informal reps) and confuse motorists. This arises because KRW - Schuster is an unbroken length of street and therefore both lie within the same area. But PPA signs may only be placed at the 'entrance to an area' and as there cannot be 2 entrances( in this case no more than 50m apart) there may only be a single set of PPA signs.

What's seems clear in this case is that the council has used PPA entrance signs at the junction of KRW and Schuster as repeater signs without realising the confusion which this causes for motorists who by correct interpretation of the Highway Code and Know Your Traffic Signs believe that if they park before the KRW/Schuster signs then they cannot be within that PPA.

Little do they know that the council believes that these PPA restrictions apply whichever side of the signs one parks and penalises accordingly.