Free Traffic Legal Advice

A "Permits Only" zone doesn't need bays or anything, you either have a permit displayed or you don't. Visitors to residents must obtain a visitor permit. Commonly scratch-off cards, they are now going virtual. One sign is normally sufficient.  Yes, they are the invention of the Devil, but you've just got to accept them, because they ain't going to disappear.

The other places nearby are not Permits Only zones, so do need bays and signs, if permit holders are to have their own parking bays.

Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.

Post up both sides of the unredacted PCN in case the experts here can find that there is something wrong with the 'small print'.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Don't rush to pay yet !

Councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists.  It is quite clear here that they haven't. As you found out, a single sign can be obscured by parked vans. If they had erected two signs, then it is almost certain you would have seen one of them.  As it is you didn't see the sign, because it was obscured by a van.

So submit representations on the basis of inadequate signage, stating that you saw no sign when driving into Brook CLose, and it was only when you received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that you came across the single sign. Point out that under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here they have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

Post up their response when you get it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made

Thanks for the info - is there a "representations" template at all?

and are you referring to this section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made

Yes. Regulation 18 (1)(a)

How does this read?

Appeal

Trafford Council
Ref: Appeal PCN TR10516584

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY

Request for discretion
I would invite the council to show discretion in enforcing this PCN.

Based on the above I kindly request the council to use its power of discretion to cancel the Penalty Charge on the basis councils are under a duty in the LATOR regulations to install sufficient signs at street level to convey the restriction to motorists. I invite you to review The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, and specifically 1996 No. 2489, Part III, Regulation 18 (1)(a) which specifies:

---
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

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made
---

It is quite clear here that in this case Trafford Council have failed to do this, as a single sign mounted on the opposite side of the road to entry can be and was easily obscured by parked vans due to the mounting height of the sign. If two signs had been erected and mounted higher, then it is almost certain at least one would have been seen. As I've confirmed, I did not see the sign, because it was obscured by a parked van in the immediate non permit requiring space in front of the sign.

Brook Lane (off Brook Close) has no such permit restrictions and cars are able to park anywhere along the road where there are no yellow lines, white lines or blocking entry to driveways. There are also no marked bays such as those in Grosvernor Road where there are marked parking bays and many, many permit signs. I would argue therefore that it was safe to assume Brook Close, like Brook Lane (and in non marked, none yellow lined spaces up to the permit sign) was a location where a non permit vehicle was eligible to park as I saw no sign when driving into Brook Close, and it was only when I received the PCN, and investigated the street for signs that I came across the single sign mounted low down and previously not visible due to the parked van in a non permit space. Under the LATOR regulations, councils are under a duty to erect sufficient signs so that the restriction is clearly indicated to motorists. Here I believe Trafford Council have failed to do so, therefore the contravention did not occur.

I request therefore the PCN be cancelled.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make a formal representation against the Notice to Owner issued for Penalty
Charge Notice TR10516584 against registration V17 ABY

Are you sure about that? The PCN was only issued last week, so I don't see how you could have a notice to owner already? I think you're making an informal representation.

You don't need to give links to the legislation, it's up to the council to know the laws that it is enforcing. I would also remove the bit about discretion, if the signage is inadequate then discretion doesn't come into it, discretion only applies if a contravention did occur and you're asking them to cancel a penalty notwithstanding the fact that the contravention occurred.

Lastly the PCN has a premium rate 0845 number, have a read of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) as that will explain the significance of this.

No dodn't send anything else yet leave the payment reason for the NTO stage