Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, IMO the CEO, council and you are as confused as each other.

1. The PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction(it's not a loading 'bay' as you've called it, kerb markings indicate a prohibition against loading outside 'bays'). So, what's the law?

As I understand it the regs give the following:

Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time; These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the part-time days and hours.

Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that:

1 As the CEO has presented evidence of a 'No loading at any time' sign they believed that the markings were single and needed a supplementary sign, in this case 'No loading at any time'. But this sign is NOT permitted to be used with a single blip because you cannot have a full-time part-time restriction. This combination is not lawful. Which only leaves..

2. The CEO thought that there were double blips marked on the kerb. In which case as these in themselves signify a 'prohibition at all times' a supplementary photo of a sign whose purpose is rendered redundant by virtue of double blips is unnecessary and potentially confusing.

To compound this confusing picture, the photo of the redundant or incorrect 'No loading at any time' sign is situated in CPZ SB beyond the boundaries of CPZ BA and therefore the CEO, and based upon their response to your initial reps, the authority consider that the restriction signs within CPZs are interchangeable between CPZs.

So there's a single blip.

OK.

It is meaningless in law unless it is accompanied by a traffic sign which gives those times during which the loading prohibition is in force.

There is NO evidence what times are prohibited, it MAY NOT as a matter of law be 'At any time'.


OP, it is really a straightforward issue. Forget about parking bays, they're irrelevant. DYL + single blip - part-time no loading traffic sign = 0.

Hi

My NtO came today, can anyone advise what should my response be.

Shall I say the blips were faded or mention the sign is on Lea Bridge road and not the road I was on?

Contravention did not occur.

The council's evidence as regards the contravention comprises the PCN, CEO's notes and photos.

After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No loading at any time'. There are no kerb blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.

It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic sign with a part-time loading restriction.

Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road.

My car was situated in CPZ BA.

It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent belief because:

(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time' cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as to the extent of the loading restriction; or

(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb blips.

When either of the above is added to the lack of any further kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading' sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within CPZ.

If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers mate,  will draft something up this weekend.

Hi

I have drafted the response below, is there anything i should add/remove?



To whom it may concern

I wish to appeal against my NtO on the bases the contravention did not occur.

First and foremost the blips on the kerb are faded and barely visible, it is your duty to maintain them so drivers can see them easily.

Secondly, the PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction, however as you can see from the picture, in the 35m of double yellow lines between the parking bays ending to the junction with Lea Bridge, there is only 1 single faded blip on the kerb,

The law states:

Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time; These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the part-time days and hours.

Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.
The fact the CEO presented evidence of a 'No loading at any time' sign, demonstrates they believed that the markings were single and needed a supplementary sign.

Furthermore, the  'No loading at any time' sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road. My car was situated in CPZ BA.

As there is no exit/entrance between Poplars Road & Lea Bridge Road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge Road. If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.

I thus believe no contravention occurred and hence I displayed my blue badge so I could park on the double yellow lines.

thanks,

ive amended it to this. let me know if its ok to send now

To whom it may concern

I wish to appeal against my NtO on the basis the contravention did not occur.

After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No loading at any time'. There are no well mark sequence of kerb blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.

It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic sign with a part-time loading restriction.

Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road.

My car was situated in CPZ BA. Furthermore, due to the bollards on the road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge road as cars cant enter or exit Poplars Road via the junction with Lea Bridge Road.

It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent belief because:

(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time' cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as to the extent of the loading restriction; or

(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb blips.

When either of the above is added to the lack of any further kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading' sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within CPZ.

If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.

I thus consider this PCN totally invalid and that it should be cancelled with immediate effect.

Regards

Cheers, I thought the more I include now the more likely they are to cancel it.  I'll just send them what you've written above and should they still refuse then send my initial draft to adjudicator.  Waltham forest council are very stubborn.  The last 3 appeals I've one ended up taking over 12 months.