Free Traffic Legal Advice

..there is a parking place in South End Rd which extends from opposite no.75 to its junction with Keats Grove, approx. no.65. This contains 4 traffic signs, 3 of which are stand-alone and one which is erected on a post shared with a separate adjoining parking place. Their respective restrictions are different, the former being shared-use, the latter pay by phone. The latter separate bay extends from Keats Grove to opp. no.45 South End Rd.

On the day in question I was parked in the shared-use bay which I approached from the north which meant that I passed 3 stand-alone traffic signs within the bay. As a matter of fact, none of these carried any notice of suspension but also as a fact each traffic sign was displayed clearly.

I parked as seen in the CEO's photo. As the authority will note, the CEO took numerous photos none of which shows the wording of the alleged suspension, instead the authority claims that their notes refer to this wording. As a matter of fact, I saw the shared post ahead which carried 2 yellow signs. 
Both were hanging at an angle on tne post and beneath two fully exposed traffic signs.

As can be seen in my photo which I submit as evidence, the only fully intelligible suspension sign as far as is material read as follows:

Mon 1 July - Fri. 26 July
Whole bay 45-65 South End Rd.

This clearly refers to the further bay and not the one in which I was parked.

The lower and more askew sign's suspended area cannot be comprehended from the photo which must be a material fact which the authority must consider and set against the uncorroborated notes of the CEO who, had they wished, had the time and I submit the duty to support their written account with objective evidence.

However, the lack of clarity of the sign which purportedly suspended the whole bay in which Iwas parked is not the only issue which the authority must consider. Both the CEO's single photo taken from a distance and mine show that the traffic signs on this post were left uncovered. I submit that not only is this improper when a whole bay is intended to be suspended, it is also a strong counter indicator that the extent of a suspension is a whole bay. I would add to this(again omitted from their notes by the CEO) that none of the other 3 signs within 'my' bay was covered neither did any of them carry a suspension sign which would have allowed a motorist to at least try and make sense of the unreadable sign by looking for another.

Of course the authority is able to disregard my objective evidence (which I would likewise submit to the adjudicator should this be necessary) but I would hope that my evidence is given the weight it deserves and that when compared to that of the CEO which is lacking in material detail my representations are accepted.

Consternation - my Notice to Owner Appeal has been rejected.

Without acknowledging the key point that I hadn't been parked in the bay that appeared to be suspended, of 2 contiguous ones there, with the other well marked up. Nor the related point that road signs close by were not yellow-suspension-signed to designate start and end of any such partial suspension.

Similarly, they do not truly address the rather conspicuous lack of an uploaded photo of their faded "map" & unreadable instructions, either, simply saying that: "photographic evidence is not a legal requirement, and it merely serves as additional evidence." Hmm, why, might additional evidence sway, since they do not go on to then discuss MY own uploaded copy? Nor how they can demonstrate why, in this instance, they could be sure to trust their CEO without any such good evidence. I had in fact provided a detailed account of just how verbally their CEO had NOT been SURE of the offence, had tried two interpretations at that time nevertheless completing the ticket which hadn't been issued when I returned from a couple of minutes search along the road for the dropped bank card. Yet told me to appeal. It must be the case that some tickets are fallaciously issued.

Neither sadly has the fine been halved. 

So what are my options now, given I still feel misled into this fine?

Will upload the letter.

Thank you for any help as to whether an adjudicator would be more open to the true story in a further appeal.


FullSteam_Ahead

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

No re-offer of the discount means it's now a total no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals, as the penalty remains the same, and there are no additional costs. Of course they will have the fag of preparing an evidence pack and also paying the adjudication fee, so they may not contest when you hold their hand to the fire.

Would anybody please help collating the right relevant information?
This is really worrying me now as to how to have anyone see the points already raised but not really responded to, this time.


Thanks,


Happy Christmas holidays.