Free Traffic Legal Advice

Background:

- I received a parking ticket with contravention code 165 (Newham) - Being parked in a disabled bay
- I genuinely didn't know I was parked in a disabled bay because the road markings were almost invisible and when I looked at the closest sign, it had the pay by phone details, restrictions did not apply on Sunday except for event days
- I checked that there were no events on and proceeded to park


Appeal:

- I appealed

"I challenge this PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The bay in question is alleged to be a dedicated disabled permit bay. However, the carriageway markings indicating such a bay are extremely worn and effectively absent. From the position where my vehicle was parked, there was no visible disabled symbol or clear bay marking to indicate that the space was restricted.

Furthermore, the upright sign indicating the disabled permit bay is positioned a significant distance away from the location of my vehicle and is not clearly associated with the bay in which I was parked. There is no sign immediately adjacent to my vehicle that would clearly convey the restriction to a reasonably diligent motorist.

For a contravention under code 165, the restriction must be clearly and unambiguously indicated. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions require both clear road markings and appropriate signage. In this location, the combination of severely worn bay markings and poorly positioned signage fails to adequately convey the restriction.

I have enclosed photographs taken at the location which demonstrate the condition of the bay markings and the distance between the sign and my vehicle. In light of this, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled."



Appeal rejected:

- The appeal has been rejected and I want to know if I should take things further
- The disabled bay signage is set away from the kerbside, there is a pedestrian pathway between the car and the sign, which is inconsistent with the paybyphone sign which is kerbside.
- Failure to maintain road markings, Newham said a "DISABLED" road marking is not legally required but they clearly deemed such a marking necessary in this space to ensure clarity.
- Currently the bay markings and disabled road markings are both are eroded, it was a rainy grey day so the markings were not visible when I approached the bay

https://imgpile.com/p/ifIujnA









Here you can see the kerbside other sign and the disabled sign set away from the road


I've taken a screenshot from streetview and added a van to try to replicate the situation. You can see there is one sign kerbside and the other set behind a walkway and bike lane









Location

Old Street view shows the disabled bay sign is behind a walk way and a bike lane. The road markings are more prominent in these images from 2024

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fWXZ23uCc7wZqppT7

There are hundreds of appeals at the location Broadway so I narrowed it down to recent cases and checking a second allowed appeal - bingo!

But I'm assuming it's the same bay as the pics are no longer on Newham's site.

EDIT And others! With the caveat I can't be sure of the location but bet it is the same.

And with the caution that there are probably also refused appeals but the weight would seem to be on this being defective signage.

-------------

Case reference 2240026419
Appellant Fabiha Ahmed
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM AP59HTX
PCN Details
PCN PN36293689
Contravention date 26 Jul 2023
Contravention time 13:27:00
Contravention location Broadway
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 26 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
Mr Ahmed, the driver, for the appellant, attended the telephone hearing of this appeal today. The council did not attend the hearing.

This vehicle on the council's case was parked in a disabled resident permit holders only bay without a valid disabled badge.

Mr Ahmed, who paid to park in accordance with a sign posted behind the vehicle, raised the issue of signage in accordance with his written submissions supporting evidence being provided.

The disabled resident bay sign was posted on the other side of a cycle lane. I can see that the bay is marked but I was satisfied my noting the posting of the sign relied upon by Mr Ahmed in the position it was and the distance between the bay and the disabled resident permit holder sign that there was an ambiguity as to the restriction that applied to this bay and I accordingly found that the contravention had not been proved.

--------


Case reference   224008241A
Appellant   Swiftflow Supplies t/a Berhams Plumbing Supplies
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   GN73 MLV
PCN Details
PCN   PN37090654
Contravention date   01 Nov 2023
Contravention time   17:05:00
Contravention location   Broadway
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   18 Jul 2024
Adjudicator   Jack Walsh
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
Mr. Wicker and Ms Davis appeared for the appellant company. I had regard to what they said in the course of the telephone hearing as well as their written submissions, which included helpfully marked and dated photographs.


The burden of proving the contravention is on the enforcement authority (EA). To discharge the burden of proving the contravention the EA also needs to prove that, on the occasion in question, there was in place signage that was adequate to inform road users of the restriction in place in the location in which the vehicle parked. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.


There is no dispute that the appellant company’s vehicle was parked in a disabled resident permit holders’ bay without a corresponding permit.


In this case the evidence of signage comes from three sources, the photographs provided by the appellant company, those taken by the civil enforcement officer (CEO) and additional images taken from Google Streetview and provided by the EA.


In the latter set of images, which are undated, there is a road marking legend on the carriageway adjacent to the bay in question stating ‘disabled’. There is also a clear transverse bay marking between the bay in question and an adjacent set of bays, in which parking may be paid for.


Those two sets of markings are not present (or at least or not visible) in the photographs taken by the CEO and the photographs taken just two days after the alleged contravention by the appellant company. That is to say, the two adjacent sets of bays appear to be just one long bay. I find on the balance of probabilities that that is now the bays appeared on the occasion in question.


There was also, I find, a sign in respect of the disabled residents permit holders’ bay adjacent (in a broad sense) to that bay. However, the evidence from all sources shows, and I find, that between the bay and the sign was a footway and a cycle path. Therefore, the sign was separated not just in distance from the bay but by other sections of the road. Rather, albeit it was further away in a direct line from the disabled residents permit holders’ bay, immediately adjacent to the long bay (as it appeared) was a sign indicating that parking may be paid for. That sign was not separated from the long bay by the footway or the cycle path. I find on the balance of probabilities that it appeared that that sign applied to the entirety of the long bay. Indeed, the appellant company’s driver thought that parking could be paid for in the bay in which he parked and there is evidence that parking was in fact paid for for the time in question.


I do not find that the signage in respect of the disabled residents permit holders’ bay, namely the sign and the bay markings, was adequate on the occasion in question. On the contrary, it was confusing and the appellant company’s driver was in fact confused by it.


The contravention is not proved.

---------

Case reference   2240246109
Appellant   Jaroslav Sender
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   LG69VFO
PCN Details
PCN   PN37540932
Contravention date   21 Dec 2023
Contravention time   15:04:00
Contravention location   Broadway
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   18 Jul 2024
Adjudicator   Edward Houghton
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
I heard the Appellant in person. His case is that the signage indicating the nature of the space in which he parked was not clear. In the light of his photographs, and those of the CEO, I agree with him.

These show a line of bays dominated by a large, shared- use bay sign. The time plate for the disabled permit space is by contrast set well back from the line of bays; and there appear to be no clear dividing lines between the two types of bay which might alert the motorist tor the need to look carefully for a different sign. The signage does not comply in any way with the suggestions of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 19 para 13.21.4 regarding the signage of adjacent types of bays. I am not surprised the Appellant missed the sign relied on by the Council. As I am not satisfied the restriction relied on was adequately drawn to the Appellant’s attention the vehicle was not in contravention and the Appeal is allowed.

--------


Case reference   2240387927
Appellant   Mr Davidson Okoye
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   LE23FNO
PCN Details
PCN   PN38119467
Contravention date   07 Mar 2024
Contravention time   10:13:00
Contravention location   Broadway
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   15 Nov 2024
Adjudicator   Anju Kaler
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
The vehicle was seen in a permit bay without the relevant permit and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued.

The Appellant stated on 17/06/2024 that his daughter was vomiting and he had to stop for this reason. On 16/07/2024, he stated that he paid for parking and he says the receipt is enclosed. No receipt is enclosed but he did submit evidence of an upcoming operation for his daughter and a photograph of a box of Co-Dydramol.

The Authority rejected the representations and said the reduced penalty would be accepted if paid within 14 days.

In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant says he parked in a parking bay and paid by phone to attend the eye clinic. There was a sign on a post far away that said disabled and it was not marked on the road. He noticed when he went back to the site that it was now clearly marked but it was not like that on the day.

The Appellant’s bank statement shows that he made payment of £2.84 on 07/03/2024. That may have been to park his car.

The Appellant has given conflicting evidence throughout. That affects his credibility.

I need to satisfy myself that the bay was correctly marked. The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs do no show the words “disabled” marked on the outside of the bay; the site photographs do show this. I am not satisfied that the bay was properly marked on the date of contravention.

I allow the appeal.

On London Tribunals site but you have enough here.

Draft a short challenge and post here.

OP, dealing with process first, are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?

If yes, then a Notice to Owner would come to you and you may make formal representations. If not, then I suggest bringing the keeper up to speed.

As the keeper would have 28 days to make reps, this gives plenty of time to consider the issue in the round.

IMO, the markings are contradictory, legally distinguished and therefore confusing, a confusion which should be found in your favour.

IMO:
The marking 'DISABLED' (or what remains of it) is not permitted because it's a PERMIT bay, or at least this is what the council believes. The fact that a disabled badge is a qualifying condition for the issue of a Disabled Resident Permit is incidental and has no more force in law than being a qualifying resident;
The DYL indicate a no waiting restriction from the centre of the carriageway to the back of the footway. It does not lie with the authority to 'amend' this legally prescribed meaning by purporting to allow parking of any sort within its scope.

i would redraft the reps to mirror what the allowed appeals say, and also make it shorter.

- That you are repeating your informal challenge that the contravention did not occur owing to inadequate signage.

- That the bay layout on the pavement is to all appearances one continuous bay goverened by an adjacent shared use parking sign that you were entitled to rely on.

- That the disabled parking sign is on the other side of a cycle track and not on this parking bay.

- You refer the authority to allowed appeals xxx, xxx, and in particular xxxx, in which  the adjudicator stated:
The signage does not comply in any way with the suggestions of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 19 para 13.21.4 regarding the signage of adjacent types of bays.