Free Traffic Legal Advice

It's OK - I see I posted the rejection.

I would try this but it's almost certain to end up at the tribunal but I would like to see another adjudicator pay attention to these points. At tribunal I would also introduce comparison with say Islington. 


----------

I am making representations against the PCN on the grounds that no contravention occurred according to a reasonable understanding of the sign at the parking place, which led me to believe I was parked legally.

The sign says there is 30 mins parking 8am - 6.30pm Mon-Sat and below that on event days this is extended to 9pm. There is no mention that this could apply to Sunday, which is when I parked and if you do mean it to include Sunday the sign must say so.

This was accepted in the grounds in allowed appeal 2240208187, where the adjudicator states:

"The signage is also confusing as the reference to Event Days could easily be read as extended controlled hours where there is an Event Day Mondays to Fridays."

In my initial challenge I assumed the PCN was given for reason of it being an event day, and researched how I could have known - apparently the only such indication was a long distance away on a dual carriageway in my journey from Mile End. This I see is on a controlled parking zone sign.

As the adjudicator in 2240208187 also said regarding a similar alleged contravention:

"CPZ signs alert motorists to single yellow line parking restrictions. A motorist parking on a single yellow line in a CPZ is expected to check CPZ parking sign restrictions and, in so doing, would be aware of Event Day restrictions. However, a motorist parking in a resident's bay is subject to the signed restrictions for the bay which may or may not be the same as CPZ restrictions.

"Critically, the time plate for this permit parking place does not provide motorists with any information about Event Days. It does not refer the motorist to CPZ signs or to a website for details of Event Days. A motorist parking in the bay cannot be expected to know where to find details of Event Days."

This is the position I was in and I feel you have failed in your duty to sign a restriction adequately, and I am also unhappy with your rejection of my informal challenge, which gives no detail as to why you believe a contravention occurred.

So I am  putting the above points to you in the hope you will address them and concede that there are grounds to cancel the PCN.

I look forward to your early reply.   

I have just done an event day pcn in a cpz zone. Newham did not have photos of the entry signs except from July 23. The traffic order did not define an event day. Both of these are fatal to the council case. I can be your free representative. I am at the tribunal every week, already got cases listed up to 18 december. For help please email the unredacted notice of rejection to mrmustard@zoho.com

Emailed you. Thanks

Case yesterday.

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

2240495930
10 Dec 2024

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit holder only parking bay in Holland Road at 9.18am on Sunday 9 June 2024 without a valid permit.

I have looked at the CEO's photographs and the Council's site images. These show that Mr Manners' car was parked in a bay which was signed as being for parking by permit holders only during the restricted hours of 9am to 6pm from Mondays to Fridays. Beneath this, a further restriction read "On event days 8am to 9pm". It is not in dispute that there was no valid permit for parking.

The Council's evidence shows that Sunday 9 June 2024 was an Event Day.

Mr Manners appeals because he says that the signage was not clear in Holland Road. He says that he had no way of knowing that this was an Event Day.

The Council relies upon CPZ signs alerting motorists to Event Days. Library images are submitted of CPZ signs which carry an Event Day notice at the foot of the sign alerting motorists to the next such day.

CPZ signs alert motorists to single yellow line parking restrictions. A motorist parking on a single yellow line in a CPZ is expected to check CPZ parking sign restrictions and, in so doing, will be aware of Event Day restrictions. However, a motorist parking in a resident's bay or a shared use bay is subject to the signed restrictions for the bay which may or may not be the same as CPZ restrictions.

The time plate for this bay does not provide motorists with any information about Event Days. It does not refer the motorist to CPZ signs or to a website for details of Event Days. A motorist parking in the bay cannot be expected to know where to find details of Event Days.

The signage is also misleading. The wording "On event days 8am to 9pm" appears directly beneath the Monday to Friday normal restricted hours so that the motorist could easily read the added restriction as meaning event days which are between Monday and Friday.

I therefore find that the signage was not adequate and I allow the appeal for that reason.

Play a game of chicken with Mr Mustard and you will lose.

---------

Case reference   2240509048

I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the Appellant’s representative Mr Dishman. His case is essentially that the sale of chicken does not amount to an event day and that the signage indicating the presence of an event day was in adequate. The onus is on the Council to prove that the day was an event day in law and that this fact was clearly and correctly indicated.
An event day is defined in the Traffic Management Order provided by the Council as (so far as is relevant to the present case) “any other sporting or non-sporting activity which in the opinion of the Traffic Manager for the London Borough of Newham is likely to benefit from the scheme being in force”. There seems to me to be no evidence from such a person that he/she formed that opinion. In the circumstances I am unable to be satisfied the day in question was an event day within the meaning of the TMO and the Appeal must be allowed on that ground alone.
(It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the signage in place on the route described by the Appellant was sufficiently clear – something which might well have necessitated an adjournment for the Council and/or the appellant to provide photographic evidence of the particular sign passed and its location.)