Free Traffic Legal Advice

According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit holders C, 'except in signed bays'.

So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit C.

The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The question then arises: was it signed correctly?

IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if true.

A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not occur.

The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the restriction is, it's what's conveyed.

Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la vie.

As for Roman..

This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in this case a clear pay by phone sign.

According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit holders C, 'except in signed bays'.

So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit C.

The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The question then arises: was it signed correctly?

IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if true.

A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not occur.

The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the restriction is, it's what's conveyed.

Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la vie.

As for Roman..

This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in this case a clear pay by phone sign.

The bay is very long. On one end of the bay it allows permit holders, and on the other it does not. The signs contradict each other for the same bay so surely either payment or permit should be allowed?

In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.

I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at all?

Quote from: anonymous on March 13, 2025, 03:23:28 pm

Quote from: stamfordman on March 13, 2025, 02:40:15 pm

In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.

I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at all?

The sign governing the bay is the pay sign. The permit sign is nothing to do with the bay. I was confused at first until Mr Anderson pointed out it's a PPA and that sign is at the end of the bay.

But this sign clearly does or am I missing something? Apologies if I am being daft.

Sorry I didn't read back. If there is a shared use permit/pay sign in the bay and the car has a permit for there then that's compelling grounds for cancellation despite the CEO taking a pic of the other sign.

We've broken a golden rule here with two cases in one thread...

OK thought I was going crazy there! Yes it is a bit confusing with the 2 different threads going on at the same time as this post was post was initially created just to ask for advice on no reply received to a challenge.

Is it easier if I split this into another thread?

In regards to Roman Road, do I just appeal saying that I was within my rights to park there? What grounds would I select?

For Roman Road the reps would be contravention didn't occur if you are certain the permit for that bay is valid and the shared use sign is there, a pic of which you'd send.

If you want to go on with the other one I suggest starting a new thread for it and gathering the info posted so far.

Is it worth mentioning that no response was received for the challenges to the PCN?

In regards to the other PCN, mrmustard has very generously offered to make representations on the drivers behalf.

I get confused when we move from third parties to first person.

So do I  . Third person is not natural for me. In this case I talk in first person because they have asked me for help with their tickets. And its easier to write haha

Roman
Single bay; traffic signs at either end with different restrictions?

Khartoum
Single bay; single defaced and unreadable sign?

Precisely

Congratulations. Taking a screenshot of the portal might be a wise precaution just in case they try to change their minds, but it's highly unlikely.