Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi there,

Advice needed - notice of rejection received - do I have grounds for appealing to the ETA?

I received a PCN and my car was towed from Victoria Road (where I have a permit to park) while a temporary traffic order was in place for gutter cleaning on 18th June 2024.

I had previously misread a sign on adjacent St John's Road where I parked on 13th June, thinking restrictions were in place on Victoria Road on 20th June. My appeal was rejected.

The signage I read stated restrictions were in place on 20th June for "Forest view road, Spencer road, St Johns road (Forest road - Victoria road)". I saw "Victoria Road" and made mistake of thinking it included my street. It was only after I was towed that I looked at the photo I took more closely and realised my mistake that it meant Forest Road up to where it becomes Victoria Road.

As it was a genuine mistake I thought it worth a shot to appeal! WF said signage is compliant.

I'm considering appealing to the tribunal. Potential grounds:

1. Unclear/non-compliant signage?
2. Gutter cleaning didn't occur on specified dates (if provable)
3. "Authorised clamping/removal" flyer not filled out (see image)
4. No postal/email notification about gutter cleaning (could've parked before signs went up)

Any advice on which grounds are strongest or additional points to consider?


Images

https://imgur.com/a/QkUUFDI

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/QkUUFDI"><a href="//imgur.com/QkUUFDI">Waltham Forest - code 02a - parked in restricted street (temporary order), Victoria Road, PCN and tow </a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Signage I observed 13/06/24

The sign looks like it doesn't include Victoria Road but St John's Road from in its extent from Forest Road to Victoria Road. If that's what they are relying on for a contravention in Victoria Road there is a good case in my view.

Just looking at the PCN spreadsheet

My NoR "Does not advise of tribunal's power to accept late appeal contrary to Shelley Sinclair v Lewisham" - is this relevant / useful?

OP, would you please host all your images externally as per the forum's READ THIS FIRST instructions at the top of the page because working through your uploaded photos is a tad wearing!

Contravention did not occur- improperly signed;

Procedural impropriety- as you say, they've omitted the reference to the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted beyond the 28-day statutory period. This is NOT some secondary, doesn't matter if it's not included provision, it is absolutely fundamental to the procedure operating fairly. There's a whole host of reasons why the recipient of a NOR might not be able to act within the 28-day period and IMO it is as important to include this provision as the 28-day statutory period. 

Hi everyone,

I have submitted my appeal arguing procedural impropriety (The Notice of Rejection fails to mention the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted beyond the statutory 28-day period) & no contravention (improperly signed).

I've argued the signage is unclear and ambiguous regarding the suspension on Victoria Road and that the signs didn't comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) standards regarding clarity, and I included images from the TSRGD about sign readability and recommended units of information.

However, I couldn’t find anything in the TSRGD specifically about how to word the exact areas/roads impacted by temporary bay suspensions. If anyone has any insights about the proper wording for parking suspensions, that would be really helpful!

Do you think it’s worth asking the local authority for more evidence, like the traffic order they applied for? Or FOI about whether the gully works took place that morning? Could this help strengthen my challenge? I believe I can still upload further evidence as long as it's received 7 days before the hearing.

Thanks

Sorry I was running out of time as deadline was yesterday so had to send!
I've added the 2 additional pieces of evidence from the TSRGD here (scroll to bottom) https://imgur.com/a/waltham-forest-code-02a-parked-restricted-street-temporary-order-victoria-road-pcn-tow-QkUUFDI


Here's what I wrote:


1.    The Contravention Did Not Occur: Improperly Signed Temporary Suspension
On 13th June 2024 I parked my car on St John’s Road (a neighbouring street to Victoria Road where the alleged contravention occurred) and carefully observed the suspension signs. These signs indicated that parking would be suspended on Victoria Road on 20th June. I made a note of this date in my diary to ensure compliance. The information provided led me to believe that the suspension would be in effect on 20th June, not 18th June when my car was towed. The lack of specificity regarding affected areas or house numbers on Victoria Road created ambiguity. This led to confusion about the exact location of the suspension. The contravention did not occur because the signage was unclear and ambiguous.

Additionally, the signage did not comply with the requirements set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD), which govern the clarity and adequacy of road signs, including temporary suspension notices.
As per TSRGD guidelines, temporary suspension signs must be clear, visible, and unambiguous. The signs in place failed to meet this standard and misled me about the boundaries of the suspension. Without proper and compliant signage, the alleged contravention cannot be enforced.

2.   Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to Advise of Tribunal's Power to Accept Late Appeals
The Notice of Rejection (NOR) I received fails to mention the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted beyond the statutory 28-day period. This omission constitutes a procedural impropriety, as highlighted in the case of Shelley Sinclair v Lewisham.

It is fundamental to the fairness of the appeals process that recipients of an NOR are fully informed of all their rights, including the possibility of submitting a late appeal to the tribunal for a variety of valid reasons, such as illness, travel, or other unforeseen circumstances. The omission of this information misleads the recipient about their options and deprives them of a key procedural safeguard. This is not a secondary or irrelevant provision, but a crucial element of ensuring fair treatment within the statutory process. Without clear guidance on this matter, the fairness of the procedure is compromised.

Conclusion
I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled on the grounds of procedural impropriety and the fact that the contravention did not occur due to improperly signed suspension notices.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.