Author Topic: Waltham Forest. Code 11 u, Parked without payment of Parking Charge (electronic payment) Frances Road Chingford E4  (Read 367 times)

0 Members and 113 Guests are viewing this topic.

On the date in question, we parked our vehicle in a marked parking bay on Frances Road, E4—a location where we have parked for many years without issue.

At the time of parking, we were unaware that the council had recently changed this area from free parking to paid parking. The signage indicating this change was not visible at the time we parked due to the following factors:

1. Obstructed Signage
• A high-sided construction van was parked directly in front of the relevant sign at the time of arrival, blocking it from view.
• The parking sign was also positioned high up on a pole, further obscuring visibility, particularly from the driver’s seat.
• A photograph taken from above the driver's door clearly shows that the sign could not reasonably be seen.

2. Environmental Obstruction
• Additional construction vehicles and temporary site equipment were present on the street, further reducing visibility and adding confusion to the parking environment.

3. No Reasonable Opportunity to Comply
• We only became aware of the signage after receiving the PCN and returning to investigate.
• The only payment method offered was via mobile phone, and we had no mobile signal at that location, making compliance impossible even if the signage had been seen.

Given these circumstances, we believe the PCN was issued unfairly, as there was no clear, visible notice of the parking restriction, and no practical means provided to comply. This falls short of the Council’s legal obligation to provide adequate and visible signage under relevant parking enforcement regulations.

https://imgur.com/a/Vjg4dKW

I couldn't preview this, so apologies for any errors

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: May 10, 2025, 06:44:46 pm by Cobra427 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Were you in the bay by Frances Court ? Latest GSV view for September 2024 (7 months ago),  shows this sign:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/F9VPCDXWWeZtxmJp7
Previous GSV views show it in place as far back as 2014: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7ym8fR4X5GpMhjJA7
So the bay has been PbP for 11 years.
As you parked in a marked out bay, you are under a duty as a motorist to look for the sign controlling the bay, so saying it was obscured by a vehicle is not a really credible argument, unless it would have been really impossible to see the text on the sign having alighted from the car.

YOu are on stronger grounds based on the mobile phone signal. If a council provides only a single means of paying, (PbP), then they are expected to make sure this is possible
What network are you on ?

However, the bottom line is that you parked and assumed the bay was free and didn't go and look for it. I can't see a win here at the moment, based on the contravention itself, but there may be a 'technical' appeal argument, based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see if something is suggested, but don't miss the payment/appeal deadline on the PCN.

Thank you for responding.

We have parked in those bays for a few years, and never had a problem. I can't recall seeing the parking signs.

On the day in question there was a van parked by Frances Court, and a high sided scaffolding lorry parked next the the sign, on the opposite side. We managed to get a photo of one of them.

There are often large lorries parked in the bays.

The viewing angle made it almost impossible to see any of the signs.

Our network provider is EE. We sometimes have one phone with signal, and one phone without signal on EE. My partners phone was flat.


I suspect you have been lucky in previous years, bearing in mind how long this restriction has been there. Signs on the opposite side of the road don't apply, by the way.

The council photos show you parked in the bay by Frances Court, and the CEO has taken a photo of the sign. There is a large lorry shown in one of the photos, but it's on the opposite side to where you parked. The sign for where the lorry parked doesn't apply.

Frankly, and sorry to have to say it, I can't see any credible appeal argument at the moment. There may be a 'technical' appeal based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait and see if anybody suggests one. This can win irrespective of whether the contravention was made out or not.

You can try asking for discretion. We had another case the other day - the OP asked if they were supposed to always check signs. The answer is clear.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-code-11u-parked-without-payment-skeltons-lane-e10/

Hello, a general response to yoou all.

I noted the following in The London Borough of Waltham Forest Policies Handbook

Page 32 of The London Borough of Waltham Forest Policies Handbook
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1raCImNu7GfP5dEC-2MrxPQhaznmEQ47j/view?pli=1

Payment by mobile phone in voucher parking bays
Waltham Forest provides on street voucher parking bays in shopping areas in Chingford, Leyton, Leytonstone and Walthamstow. From 2012 these on street parking bays can be used for fifteen minutes without payment, however should drivers wish to park for longer they must pay.
Waltham Forest introduced a new system for voucher bay parking in 2013 to make it quicker and easier for motorists to park in these parking bays within the borough.
The PayByPhone system allows cashless parking so people can pay to park over the phone, online or at their nearest PayPoint outlet.

PayByPhone is quick and secure, allowing parking to be paid for by credit or debit card using a mobile phone. Once drivers have registered to use the PayByPhone system by phone when making their first parking transaction or via the internet, they will benefit from:

• paying for exact time required
• convenience - no need to leave their car (e.g. when it's raining or late at night)
• reducing the need to carry a large number of coins
• top up payments (up to the maximum stay time allowed in that bay) wherever they are without the need to return to their vehicle
• optional expiry text alerts before parking runs out

For people unable or not wishing to use mobile phones or credit / debit cards to pay for their parking, it is possible to pay with cash at over 100 local PayPoint shops throughout the borough. The name and address of the two nearest PayPoint shops is printed on the PayByPhone advisory signs displayed by the parking bays.

On page 34 There is this:

Pop and Shop
‘Pop and Shop’ and ‘Free lunchtime parking’ (between 1 & 2pm) are applicable to all cashless (pay by phone) parking bays within the borough.

I wouldn't have been able to see the sign on the Frances Court Side of the road, as the van was in the way.

Does "pop and shop apply?

Your replies welcomed

You are quoting from a policy document published in 2016.

WF has recently scrapped the 15 mins and free hour as with that other case I posted.


OP, what applies is what's on the sign, not in a motorist's memory!*

The sign which applies is not the one in GSV, the restricted time is now 8am -6.30pm Mon-Sat(see the council's photos).

When did it change? We have posters who are adept at discovering London Gazette Road Traffic Act entries, perhaps the one for here can be found.

You parked, apparently you didn't check (well enough*)...there's only one sign which applies. As you know, what's on the other side of the road might as well be on the moon because it has no relevance. At present your draft looks like you've trawled previous threads and cobbled together a mix of headings, however irrelevant! Either you looked for it before you left the car or you didn't.

*- look at the CEO's photos. One photo of the sign which doesn't show the restriction clearly but does imply that reading the sign safely is difficult because even the CEO's best effort yielded a practicably unreadable sign.
So perhaps you could mix recent change with 'legitimate expectation'/a casual look at what to all intents and purposes looks like the same sign as before(NB you were parked at an unrestricted time under the previous restriction) and how the CEO's photo shows how difficult reading the sign safely(while on the pavement) was.
 


"You are quoting from a policy document published in 2016.

WF has recently scrapped the 15 mins and free hour as with that other case I posted."


I obtained the information from this site! How am I meant to know it was out of date?

"You parked, apparently you didn't check (well enough*)...there's only one sign which applies. As you know, what's on the other side of the road might as well be on the moon because it has no relevance. At present your draft looks like you've trawled previous threads and cobbled together a mix of headings, however irrelevant! Either you looked for it before you left the car or you didn't.

*- look at the CEO's photos. One photo of the sign which doesn't show the restriction clearly but does imply that reading the sign safely is difficult because even the CEO's best effort yielded a practicably unreadable sign.
So perhaps you could mix recent change with 'legitimate expectation'/a casual look at what to all intents and purposes looks like the same sign as before(NB you were parked at an unrestricted time under the previous restriction) and how the CEO's photo shows how difficult reading the sign safely(while on the pavement) was.

There was a van in the way, I don't have x ray vision

No I didn't know there was a difference between the two signs on each side of the road!

My draft was created before I logged onto this site, so your assumptions are wrong! I didn't look for the sign as I couldn't see it. Do you need that repeated again?

I haven't seen the CEO photos, and don't know how to access them. Perhaps, one of you could guide me to where I can find it?

Given the belittling and patronising comments made, I may as well just pay the fee, and save myself from being used to flex your superior knowledge.

If I knew what was required, I wouldn't need your assistance. I came to seek assistance and got patronised.

If there is anyone here who can assist me with my appeal, I would be grateful, otherwise, I'll pay up, and avoid using this forum again.

Quote
If there is anyone here who can assist me with my appeal, I would be grateful, otherwise, I'll pay up, and avoid using this forum again.
We help people on hear a lot but do need to find out the exact circumstance that could support a successful appeal. and that appeal would be at the adjudicators at London Tribunals, because it doesn't matter what youi write to the council they will reject it. Why ? Because they know that >95% of people then pay-up, so they game the system to make sure the money rolls in.

In terms of your own PCN, I cannot see a successful appeal at the moment, sorry to have to say it, others may differ. If you do want to submit representations, you can submit an Informal Challenge to the PCN, (these are normally rejected outright); then, if you want to stand your ground, and you are the owner of the vehicle, (as per name and address on the V5C Registration Certificate), you can wait for the next stage which is the Notice to Owner, sent to the name and address on the V5C. You can then submit Formal Reps. These are usually looked at more closely, but most are rejected. YOu can then register an appeal at London Tribunals. All of this takes some weeks to conclude.

Best advice can be to pay the discount rather than throw good money and time into a hopeless challenge. Most PCNs are correctly issued and we won't mislead people into thinking every PCN can be beaten.

However, authorities can trip themselves up by making mistakes with the process that can win, but it's a gamble and with the increase in penalties in London the stakes are higher here now.

If you want to try a challenge they will reoffer the discount I think but Havering isn't now.

You could go back and check the sign they rely on is in the bay.

Post anything here first.



« Last Edit: May 14, 2025, 06:16:10 pm by stamfordman »