Free Traffic Legal Advice

There are these signs on GSV dated Sept 2024, just before the turn into Wycombe Road. The sign means "No Waiting" (aka "No Parking" )in the zone between the times shown.

Two cases. Second one seems to be most relevant.

-----------------

Case reference   2240407660
Appellant   Irfan Khan
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   GF72OWK
   
PCN Details
PCN   AF07672880
Contravention date   17 Jul 2024
Contravention time   11:54:00
Contravention location   Wycombe Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   08 Oct 2024
Adjudicator   Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   1. The Appellant attended by telephone. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected.
2. The Appellant described how he has been parking in Wycombe Road on a Sunday since at least 2020. The Appellant told me that he was not aware that there were any restrictions on Sundays until he received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that is the subject of his appeal.
3. The Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) photographs show the Appellant's vehicle parked in Wycombe Road on Sunday 17 July 2024. There are no road markings visible in the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was parked - neither a yellow line nor a bay marking. The CEO has taken a photograph of a sign, which states "Permit holders RA only" and has the symbol for a parking place where vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway. It is not possible to discern the location of this sign in relation to the Appellant's vehicle and the Authority has not provided any further evidence to indicate its location. The Appellant told me that the sign is on the other side of the road and some distance up.
4. I am not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the Authority has proved that a contravention occurred. I accept the Appellant's submission that the sign was on the other side of the road and some distance. It is common that there are different restrictions on different sides of the same road, and where a motorist does not see any carriageway markings, as was the case here, it is important that the signage should be adequate and clearly visible. I do not find that was the case here. The Authority states that the Appellant was parked in a permit parking zone. I am not able to make a finding that this information was adequately conveyed to the Appellant on the evidence before me.
5. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is allowed.

------------

Case reference   2240524890
Appellant   Volodymyr Kravchuk
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   EY06GCO
   
PCN Details
PCN   AF0802511A
Contravention date   29 Sep 2024
Contravention time   15:42:00
Contravention location   Wycombe Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   20 Jan 2025
Adjudicator   Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   The Appellant did not attend this scheduled personal hearing, neither did any representative of the Enforcement Authority.
As previously explained, in such circumstances the Adjudicator will determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence previously produced by the parties.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street permit holder only parking place during controlled hours, without a valid permit.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that there was no clear evidence signage regarding the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority have produced library images showing ‘beyond this point’ signs but the Appellant has produced moving images appearing to show that, entering from Beehive Lane, there is no sign on the empty post.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

There are these signs on GSV dated Sept 2024, just before the turn into Wycombe Road. The sign means "No Waiting" (aka "No Parking" )in the zone between the times shown.

Apologies, been a busy few days.

Thanks for the response - acknowledge that that sign is there. I don't really know the legislation around the area that that would sign be enforced upon, so would appreciate your thoughts on the below question:

- Wouldn't that sign apply only to that specific road? Or if it were to be enforced on the road that I parked on, wouldn't the contravention I'm committing then be something different (e.g. parked in a restricted street, or something else noted here - https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/media/ktfetw3c/parking-enforcement-policy.pdf)?

Two cases. Second one seems to be most relevant.

-----------------

Case reference 2240407660
Appellant Irfan Khan
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GF72OWK
 
PCN Details
PCN AF07672880
Contravention date 17 Jul 2024
Contravention time 11:54:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 08 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. The Appellant attended by telephone. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected.
2. The Appellant described how he has been parking in Wycombe Road on a Sunday since at least 2020. The Appellant told me that he was not aware that there were any restrictions on Sundays until he received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that is the subject of his appeal.
3. The Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) photographs show the Appellant's vehicle parked in Wycombe Road on Sunday 17 July 2024. There are no road markings visible in the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was parked - neither a yellow line nor a bay marking. The CEO has taken a photograph of a sign, which states "Permit holders RA only" and has the symbol for a parking place where vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway. It is not possible to discern the location of this sign in relation to the Appellant's vehicle and the Authority has not provided any further evidence to indicate its location. The Appellant told me that the sign is on the other side of the road and some distance up.
4. I am not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the Authority has proved that a contravention occurred. I accept the Appellant's submission that the sign was on the other side of the road and some distance. It is common that there are different restrictions on different sides of the same road, and where a motorist does not see any carriageway markings, as was the case here, it is important that the signage should be adequate and clearly visible. I do not find that was the case here. The Authority states that the Appellant was parked in a permit parking zone. I am not able to make a finding that this information was adequately conveyed to the Appellant on the evidence before me.
5. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is allowed.

------------

Case reference 2240524890
Appellant Volodymyr Kravchuk
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EY06GCO
 
PCN Details
PCN AF0802511A
Contravention date 29 Sep 2024
Contravention time 15:42:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 20 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant did not attend this scheduled personal hearing, neither did any representative of the Enforcement Authority.
As previously explained, in such circumstances the Adjudicator will determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence previously produced by the parties.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street permit holder only parking place during controlled hours, without a valid permit.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that there was no clear evidence signage regarding the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority have produced library images showing ‘beyond this point’ signs but the Appellant has produced moving images appearing to show that, entering from Beehive Lane, there is no sign on the empty post.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Thanks a lot for posting these, I really do appreciate it. Definitely look super useful!

Based on the second one, and considering the additional image that I've posted (and additional images/videos I have of the entry sign/repeaters being blacked out), do you reckon I have a pretty decent case against this PCN?

OP, would you condense this pl, I'm well into my 70s and need all the help I can get.

On *** I entered and parked in Wycombe Road turning *** from Beehive Road;
I was issued with a PCN citing *******;
The council's evidence of signage is a single photo of a PPA repeater sign;
There is no PPA entrance sign in evidence;
In reality there is no sign at the junction with Beehive.

Yes?

The sign at the other entrance is not directly relevant to your case IMO - you didn't pass it, so it has no effect- but it's supportive in that it demonstrates that even the signs in situ are (regularly?) defaced.

IMO, the signage fails the adequacy test because at least one PPA entry sign in your direction of travel is mandatory because it's the only one which conveys that road markings are absent: repeaters don't, they're of the form mandated for marked bays!

OP, can we be clear: in your direction of travel there wasn't a sign, defaced or otherwise, yes?