Free Traffic Legal Advice

Well, yes, it is sneaky ! The council correctly put a suspension sign on the sign for the bay, then along came somebody else in the council and put another one, not on the same sign, but on a lamp-post. So IMHO they have mislead you and others who were entitled to rely on the sign on the lamppost. If the later sign was also on the lamppost, the earlier one should also have been there, but there should also have been the two signs on the bay sign.

However, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ? Councils are biased as they get all the money you cough-up if you pay the discount.

See what the others say, but I think you have a good case

However, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ? Councils are biased as they get all the money you cough-up if you pay the discount.

On the one hand, I have no issue paying parking fines on the rare occasions I make mistakes but, as you note, BHCC's behaviour here is illogical, lacks competence, and probably should not be rewarded. On the other, the sum involved is trivial, but preparing my case for the TPT (the alleged violation is not in London), will cost me more in terms of time than just paying the £35, which I am sure is part of the 'settle fast' game plan.

Is the TPT process a purely online appeal escalation, then a decision from an arbitrator?

With TPT, choice between telephone hearing or decision on papers. The latter is never recommended. Some of the experts here voluntarily offer to act as representative for telephone hearing if they think reasonable chance of success.

Ok, great thank you.

I think I am going to let it go to TPT, more than anything I am interested in how that will go, either way, so I view it as an experiment. My position will be that the signage is misleading, as the sign on the lamp post for my bay, was for a date in the past, as DancingDad says above. So, having been satisfied by the sign on my bay that the suspension was in the past, a reasonable person would not seek out other signs, or where would that end?

Sorry, just saw this, been on hols - thank you for responding and helping..

Penalty notice here:

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkI5eKcP9AaCy7p3_jA?e=8H9cbL
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkI5gLfVfThRj3B6nFg?e=sn4aWq

Ok, great thank you. Will let you know when the NTK/NTO arrives. I'm the owner but my wife is the keeper, but I was 'driving' (i.e., I parked the car) at the time.

For later, suspension logs.

Great, thank you.

NTO is in this folder: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhaoZsGtfKSPkJNPmyovxYSUzcFI_A?e=WsdTwR

I'm actually the owner, my wife the keeper, I was driving at the time (well, I parked it). The NTO is addressed to my wife (as she's on record as keeper) but I guess it's OK that I am the one making representations, as the driver?

Looking at the suspension logs, they put a suspension sign for houses 22/23 outside number 22, and another sign outside 24, which is very clear as directly pertains to the very next bays to both signs. Then they put a single sign for 27/28 suspension outside number 29 only, four bays away, so it feels like they made a mistake.

Anyway, thank you all for input. My appeal will be thus:

challenge due to = procedural impropriety, contravention did not occur (sign in the bay was for a very different date, so I did not contravene it). Something like the below:

"Driver arrived on 19th July and noted the sign directly posted on the parking post for the bay to be used, stating the bay - outside number 27 - is suspended on 5th July. Seeing that date is in the past, driver proceeded to park. This is evidenced by CEO photographs named 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170104.jpg' and 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170311.jpg'.

It is correct that, four bays away, outside number 29, is a sign stating the bay outside 27 and 28 are suspended on 20th July but, being as the driver had seen the suspension sign directly attached to the used bay, these were given a cursory glance, as a reasonable person will take direction from the sign posted nearest to their parking bay which, in this case, signalled a date in the recent past. Drivers are entitled to be able to rely upon clear and unambiguous signage, and the council have a duty to provide such clear and unambiguous signage, which was not done in this case.

The photograph 'wrongbaysuspended.jpg' shows the ambiguity in this situation, with the red circled sign showing the 20th and the red circled car parked in the bay marked as being restricted on 7th July. This photograph was taken by the driver the very next day, when the penalty was discovered, and the sign on the bay has been removed, despite it clearly being present in the CEO's photographs the day before. So it was obviously realised by the CEO, or other council worker, that the signage was confusing, and cleaned up. You can, however, see the presence of both signs at the time of the parking incident, in the picture name 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170224.jpg', which shows the S2000 parked in the bay with bicycle chained to the lamppost with the yellow sign showing 7th July as suspended: The sign clearly shown by the CEO in pictures 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170104.jpg' and 'Screenshot 2023-07-20 170311'.

If there were two suspensions for this bay, then two signs should have been posted on the bay. Therefore, signage was misleading due to multiple conflicting signs, and signage cannot be said to have met the requirement to clearly show the restriction. Therefore, there was no restriction legitimately applied and therefore no contravention happened.

Secondly, the PCN is defective, as it is missing the 'notwithstanding' clause.

On both these grounds, I ask that the penalty is rescinded."

Please do feedback on how to improve this. I have an RSI at the moment so bashed this out rather quickly and I am sure could be worded better!