Free Traffic Legal Advice

@ H C Andersen,

are you a genuine poster and not a troll or a council official with a bonus depending on revenues from PCNs?

The fact that signs with many lines of text are common is irrelevant. Badly maintained dangerous roads are common - this doesn't mean they are fine. What is relevant is:

how long does it take to read these signs? (too long)

Is it feasible for drivers to stop and read them safely? (No)

Can they be read safely while passing by? (No). If you instead are in the habit of reading signs with 12 lines of text while driving by, please surrender your licence https://www.gov.uk/giving-up-your-driving-licence and make roads safer - that driving style is criminal.

I timed myself (looking at the static picture) and it took me circa 11 seconds to read the whole sign.
A speed of 10 mph corresponds to 4.4 metres / sec, so at a very slow speed of 10 mph a driver would drive ca. 49 metres while reading the sign.
Surely even you can see how that would be dangerous???

Yes, DVLA details are current.

As for whether I read the website before or after the event, this, too is, IMHO, irrelevant: what is relevant is that it would have been reasonable to look up the council website, and there is no justification for the website and the signs to contain contradicting information on 1) what the event days are and 2) whether one can park for 1 hour only.

OP, don't get upset with HCA who can be a bit acerbic, but gives robust posts because you must have your ducks in a row if you're going to succeed, hence questions about your assumptions.

The real point to get across in any representation or appeal, is that even if you could read the sign and understand it all , it still doesn't have the key condition, which is parking restricted to one hour only on event days.

I do not want people to agree with me. Someone who agrees with me but cannot help me challenge the PCN may be comforting but ultimately not much use.
I would, ideally, want people to provide the best information on whether / how to challenge this PCN.

But @ H C Andersen has not been doing that.

He thinks the inconsistencies between signs and website is irrelevant. Fine. But he hasn't explained why, he hasn't provided, I don't know, precedents, previous cases where the adjudicator ruled this way. He hasn't provided any context.

He thinks that kind of sign with 12 lines of text is standard. But, again, he hasn't provided any context, any precedents, anything. Oh, and they're not as standard as he thinks, since I showed a case in which an adjudicator rules that motorists cannot be expected to know where the sign with event days are.

He clearly has poor text comprehension skills, and/or replies without reading everything.

He seemed to think my main argument was the difference between match and event days. Come on...

He thought I was saying I was allowed to park for an hour (I never said that, I just said the website says you can park for no more than 1h during event days).

When I specifically asked how one could possibly be expected to read a sign with 12 lines, and pointed out it would have meant driving for ca. 50 metres at 10mph, all he said was that these signs are common. IMHO, someone who refuses to acknowledge the danger from driving 50 metres with your eyes off the road is either a troll in bad faith or is a genuinely careless and dangerous driver.

And the took offence because I dared say that Wimbledon stadium was a little known venue (a slur, he called it!!!) - as if everyone had to be a football fan, as if folks (of all genders, not all men are football fans) weren't allowed not to follow football.

All of the above is, to me, the behaviour of someone who is needlessly confrontational, aggressive and abrasive.
If he is knowledgeable in the field, well, he most certainly hasn't shown it.
But, even if he is, that would not justify the aggressive style.

I don't think this forum has a mute / block feature, but from now on I shall ignore this type of comments unless they are backed by some information / evidence.

Getting back to this case:

He thinks the inconsistencies between signs and website is irrelevant. Fine. But he hasn't explained why, he hasn't provided,

You parked; you were obliged to read and comply with the sign; the sign indicated that if it was an event day you were parked in contravention.

It was because it was marked by a CPZ gateway sign.

Subsequently, you consulted a website which led you to believe that the traffic sign was inaccurate as it did not convey what was stated on the website.

As far as I know, you do not know what the traffic order provides.

As for the law, TMA provides:
Contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London

2(1)In Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if the vehicle is stationary in a parking place and—

(a)the vehicle has been left—

(i)otherwise than as authorised by or under any order relating to the parking place.

1) “parking place” means—

(a)a parking place designated by an order made under section 6, 9 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27),

and LATOR provides:

Traffic signs

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


The 2022 Regs provide:

5.—(1) A penalty charge may be imposed with respect to a vehicle where that vehicle is involved in a relevant road traffic contravention which is committed on or after the commencement date.

(3) In this regulation—

“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the RTRA 1984;

and..

Evidence of contravention

7.—(1) A penalty charge may only be imposed in respect of a parking contravention on the basis of—

(a)a record produced by an approved device, or

(b)information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by that officer.

So that's the authority's position laid out and the CEO's entitlement to demand a penalty based on the evidence available to the CEO.

It's now your opportunity to put your side to the authority and ultimately the keeper to an adjudicator.

The website wasn't letting me post the link (it always times out); I am hoping that posting this manually should work


https://i.postimg.cc/7Y8pWLcx/Council-reply-2023-10-21-pdf-Adobe-Acrobat-Reader-64-bit.jpg

Here is The Wandsworth (Earlsfield) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2002.

I see the document dates back to 2002, and AFAIK no event day restrictions were in place then. I searched for the road in question at the end of the document, and there is no mention of event days.

I've checked all amending order I've been sent and none seem to mention event days either, so I've gone back and asked for the event days TMO. They must have made a separate order.

I have just received a notice of rejection.

I want to appeal to the adjudicator.

I plan on repeating mostly the same points mentioned until now.

The council says the sign on its website, with the wrong dates, is just an example and the dates there are irrelevant. Why not mention it, then?
Why not put the dates on their website??