Free Traffic Legal Advice

I see no signs! Maybe the flagshaggers can take some of the blame if their flags are covering road signs. I sometimes use that road on my nightly rail replacement bus driving, in fact I'm round that way tonight so will have a close look unless I'm diverted by more road works.

The CPZ is presumably to prevent all-day parking for train commuters and match days at Priestfield Stadium which is within walking distance.

Sorry for the delay replying. For some reason didn't get email notification of the last couple of posts.


Yes I'm the registered keeper on day of contravention (owned car for many years outright). Details are all correct.


@roythebus the signs have been rotated. I've included what was my view (N. on canterbury) and a view from the road on the left (stafford st). From the stafford st view you can see a zone E entry sign and behind it across the road the reverse side (zone end) of the other zone E entry sign.

Just an update. I now have the NTO from Medway.

I'll put in an appeal sticking to the main point as suggested by HC Andersen, using the same photo as before.

draft for comment below.

I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. The single yellow line on which I was parked had no time plate and in addition the signage at the entry to the CPZ is for all practical purposes absent.

Specifically:

The CPZ sign on the left hand side of Canterbury street cannot be seen at all driving into the zone – it has been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its pole is visible.

The sign on the right hand side is also severely rotated: it can just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such an acute angle that it is impossible to read it or identify it as a CPZ sign, if you see it at all, particularly when driving at night as I was.

I have taken a picture to show this (enclosed).

As the council has failed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey the restriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I look forward to early confirmation.

 

Hi All,

They rejected the appeal. It would appear they believe drivers never turn around with a cpz. Letter below

Yes I'm sure I stated in the informal challenge that I turned around. I've not yet looked at the further tribunal appeal website. Do I get to add additional points if so what.

So far Medway have refused to be drawn into commenting on their signage. Do I need more photos?


I actually turned around by going right down a side street (green st) then left into theodore pl then right back into green st, finally turning Left onto  canterbury street at the same place I turned off. None of this exits the zone or passes any CPZ signs.

I should also say I had two passengers who can corroborate that we entered the going N on canterbury street.

Hi All,

I have now received a response/evidence from medway to my appeal to the traffic penalty tribunal.

I have some issues I would like some advice on.

1) Medway have submitted the text for another case in their outline of their case. Can they correct this.

2) In relation to the cpz signage heading north on canterbury st Medway have included an image of the sign on the LHS only showing a compliant sign.

However, on investigation I have discovered that this image in in fact a screen grab from google street view back in December 2020.

This is not the default street view image, more/most recent images shown non compliant signage. The 2020 image also shows different fencing.

Given that it's not possible to accidently screen grab past street view images this is clearly an attempted deception.

Obviously I can add additional evidence to expose this. However, is there a separate complaint route regarding medways attempt to pervert the proceedings.

3) Regarding their direction of travel argument that have included a set of compliant signs from some over entry point, however a) there are more than 2 entry points. b)given that according to Highway Code Rule 248, you must not park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space. I don't see how one can reasonably draw some adverse conclusion from the direction I was parked

Many Thanks

Jim

When is your hearing?
Have you elected for a video hearing(as opposed to one on the papers)?
Given that less than 28 days have elapsed since their NOR was served, arranging a hearing and getting the council's evidence must be something of a record!

IMO, you have procedural points arising from their NOR, namely:

Failure to inform you about the adjudicator's power to award costs;
Failure to notify you correctly of your regulatory appeal rights and the council's power to increase the penalty charge;

(the above are mandatory duties).
 
So your appeal grounds are now at least contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety.

You'll need to post their evidence pl. Others might be able to advise on formatting.

Hi John,

1) I do not yet have a hearing date

2) I have not yet selected hearing type but need to do so before thursday, I guess I need to select in person.

3) I only have the text for the other persons case in the evidence pack, see below (the name I've deleted is nothing like mine)

Appellant Explanation and Authority Summary
Appellant Explanation

I rely on my representation to Medway Council.I would like to add
that Medway council are mistaken in their belief that I hadn't turned
around in the CPZ having only passed the entry under dispute
(photo attached). (I am almost certain that I mentioned my change
in direction of travel in my informal reps)For completeness the
wording of my formal appeal to Medway council is below:"I am
appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. The
single yellow line on which I was parked had no time plate and in
addition the signage at the entry to the CPZ is for all practical
purposes absent.Specifically:The CPZ sign on the left hand side of
Canterbury street cannot be seen at all driving into the zone – it
has been rotated completely through 90 degrees and only its pole
is visible.The sign on the right hand side is also severely rotated: it
can just be made out that there is a sign there, but is at such an
acute angle that it is impossible to read it or identify it as a CPZ
sign, if you see it at all, particularly when driving at night as I was.I
have taken a picture to show this (enclosed).As the council has
failed to comply with its duty to maintain signs that convey the
restriction to the drivers, the PCN must be cancelled and I look
forward to early confirmation."

Authority Summary

This statement is submitted in response to Mr xxxxxxxxx appeals
against the Penalty Charge Notices issued for parking adjacent to
double yellow lines.Mr Miah's argument that the vehicle was
parked on a single yellow line when parking is allowed all day on a
Sunday, but the rear wheel was only slightly on the Double Yellow
line. Is not supported by evidence provided by Medway Council,
which clearly shows that the vehicle has its rear axle parked
adjacent to the Double Yellow lines, which is enforceable at any
time.In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the
photographic evidence Item 6, specifically photograph 5,
photographs taken at time of the contravention. The vehicles rear
axle has clearly parked adjacent to the yellow lines which is in
contravention of the Highway code.Whilst Medway Council
appreciate that parking in the area may be demanding the
enforcement officer cannot discriminate when issuing a ticket. If a
vehicle is seen to be parked adjacent to yellow lines and is not
exempt, it will receive a ticket. Yellow lines, whether double or
single, are installed for safety or access reasons and therefore
must be kept clear.The explanations provided by the appellant do
not align with the legal requirements or the evidence available.For
the reasons above, the authority respectfully requests that the
appeal be refused and the penalty charge upheld.

4) There doesn't appear to anything submitted as to why my appeal should be denied, only within the evidence i.e. the NoR to the appear to NTO posted earlier in this thread. They are essentially arguing I must have entered the zone from the opposite end of canterbury street from what I did based on the direction my car is parked and have included an  image of these signs. Plus the image from 2020 of the sign I did pass.