Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks this is what I have drafted, do you think its alright?  Thanks.

Dear Wandsworth Council,

Re: Appeal for PCN WA

My appeal is focussed on the defaced signage of the signs where I parked.

I was visiting my elderly parents who live in Atkinson House and parked on Austin Road in front of Atkinson House and displayed the Housing parking permit provided to my parents for visitors to park. (See attached housing permit photograph).

As you can see from my attached photograph the pole (008) where I was parked the sign was defaced and not clearly visible.  I have also attached a copy of the adjoining pole (009) where the sign is also defaced.  I was therefore not aware that the housing permit could not be used where I had parked as both the signs on that side of Austin Road were defaced.

The evidence provided by Wandsworth Council traffic warden is that of a clear sign which is on another road round the corner of Austin Road (Astle Street) and not on Austin Road where I parked my car.  The pole photographed by the Traffic Warden is the pole on Astle street and is clearly numbered as 010.  If you zoom in on some of the evidence photographs provided by Wandsworth Council one can see the defaced signs in the distance.
 
The contravention therefore did not occur as the bay where the vehicle was parked was not properly signed. The signage in the bay I parked and the adjoining bay are defaced and has therefore makes it’s provisions illegible.  It is not clear or complaint and therefore in these circumstances no contravention occurred.

The onus is on the Council to ensure the sign is not defaced this is contained within regulation 18 of the ‘The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 –
Which states:
18.— (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(c)in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.

In conclusion, The contravention did not occur.  The PCN is therefore invalid and should not have been issued due to the defaced signage.

Please cancel the PCN.

You cannot lie or mislead, but you are not required to incriminate yourself either. Here's what I would suggest:


Take a timed / dated screenshot of the confirmation page.

I would have expanded, but if it's been sent then so be it.

My take.

I would set the scene clearly.

I parked and displayed a permit provided to me by relatives who live at ****. They understood that parking at the location was permitted. I noticed the sign but it was so defaced that I wasn't able to determine that it stated anything different to what I had been told. I now know that my relatives were incorrect.

The location sits within a parking place which is situated in Austin Road and extends from its junction with Charlotte Despard Avenue to Astle Street where it terminates at Henley Street. The council have placed three traffic signs, each on a lamp column numbered respectively 008,009 and 010. The distance between lamp columns 008 and 010 is approx. 60m. The CEO has submitted a single photo of a traffic sign, in this case on lamp column 010.

The CEO's photos also show my car parked adjacent to lamp column 008 which begs the question, why? Why did the CEO walk 120m from my car to lamp column 010 and back when they could have photographed the traffic sign on lamp column 008 or even 009?

The answer is in my enclosed photos which show that these signs have been so defaced that they are unreadable. Therefore the CEO had to go to the furthest sign in order to produce, in their mind, a photo with any evidential value. It therefore follows that in order for the PCN to withstand scrutiny the council believe that the driver was similarly obliged to traipse past not one but two traffic signs in the hope (but not necessarily expectation) of finding one which was readable. The council will be aware that there are numerous adverse adjudication decisions based upon this point.

While I sympathise with the council in that they have to bear the cost and inconvenience of making repairs to these traffic signs, this cannot be visited on unfortunate motorists and the PCN should be cancelled.

Thanks HC Anderson and Stamford Man.  Have not yet sent so will expand / redraft and send.  Thanks a lot everyone.