We've seen this one before - I don't understand why they've divided the taxi time into two around midnight, and in doing so not put the first in time first.
There is a lot of sign clutter on that post. Some cases below.
Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5945363,0.0241906,3a,75y,251.52h,78.93t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sTdU8aYezNp3uqI5oKkT_9Q!2e0!5s20160701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.068363471717177%26panoid%3DTdU8aYezNp3uqI5oKkT_9Q%26yaw%3D251.52243179304432!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D-------------
223044546A
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has complied with its duty of fairness towards the Appellant by providing information in a sufficiently clear manner for the combination of the various restrictions in the parking place.
The case of the Appellant is that the signage is unclear. It is submitted that there are four signs, which are all displaying different things and there should be one clear sign to avoid confusion.
The case of the authority is that the signage is compliant with the TSRGD 2016 and that the bay functions as a pay and display bay when it is not in use as a taxi rank – the wording on the second sign down states that “No stopping …. Sunday at any time, except taxis”
I find as fact that: the signage was compliant with the relevant regulations; the information provided by the four signs was (taken as a whole) too detailed for the relevant restrictions to be understood sufficiently clearly; the Appellant was confused by the signage at the parking place.
The authority must not only comply with the TSRGD 2016 but is also under a duty to act fairly in all the circumstances. The authority must therefore have signs which accord with the concept of fairness to the Appellant
It is necessary for the authority to put in place a simpler system of providing information in order for the information for the relevant restrictions to be sufficiently fully informative by only including information that can be reasonably easily understood.
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty of fairness towards the Appellant by providing information in a sufficiently clear manner for the combination of the various restrictions in the parking place because I accept the evidence and submissions of the Appellant.
2230432016
I do not agree with Mr Chowdury that the signage for this bay is inadequate.
The presence of the bay markings and the single yellow line running through the bay alert motorists to check for the bay and line restrictions. Whilst it is certainly the case that the time plates adjacent to the bay require careful reading, I am satisfied on balance that they are clear in conveying the restrictions. There are three signs. The sign at the top is signage for a taxi stand for 3 taxis. Beneath that is the plate with the no stopping restrictions and the controlled hours with the exemption for taxis. The plate at the bottom then has the controlled hours for the pay and display/pay by phone parking which are outside of the hours when the no stopping restrictions apply. It is not uncommon to have a bay where there are different restrictions at different times. It is clear from the evidence that Mr Chowdhury's car was parked when the no stopping restriction applied.
2230415367
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped on a taxi rank when in George Lane on 18 June 2023 at 20.16.
The Appellant believed thta he was parked lawfully and has criticised the signage at the location.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the signage at this location, whilst compliant with the regulations, was overall inadequate and confusing.
There is an element of signage cluttering with four signs on the one pole, with the very top panel being illegible due to dust and dirt.
