Westminster parking ticket - 12 Parked in resident bay

Here's my early christmas card from Westminster Council. So my evidence is basically just describe what I posted in the video that I took?









[img width=950.7999877929688 height=793]https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/XqKealU_wm.webp[/img]

If they reject, then formal reps would give you the opportunity to attack whatever argument they use.

This just seems like a reiteration of the ticket itself, it's even more vague than what they said in the first rejection letter, so my formal representation is gonna be the same again then no?
In their first rejection letter they stated that the signage was clear and should have been adhered to. I can at least point out that it wasn't clear and indeed it appears that there once was a sign right where I had parked (see latest GSV image) which has recently been removed. The sign closest to me, as photographed by the CEO was the loading bay sign. The nearest sign about residents only was some way ahead and couldn't reasonably have been noticed unless I had driven up to  & past it. Even though I did walk past that sign on my way to work, I was on the pavement by then.
Can I attach a print of the GSV to the representation? And stills from the video I took?

Here's my best effort at a formal representation. So which option do I choose as my grounds for making representations?

Ah there was an option online for "Other reasons" so I've sent this in now.

Still no NoR for this one, the one I got from Barnet is already done and tribunal date set.
Just making a note to myself here which might be useful if it turns out worth going ahead to tribunal.

The Notice of Rejection will state that you must either pay the penalty charge or appeal in writing against the council's decision to the independent adjudicator, including any further representations that you wish to make.

This kind of implies that you must provide further evidence for a tribunal, given the council have rejected it, so it won't be enough to go forward. You could argue that it's misleading.

This kind of implies that you must provide further evidence for a tribunal, given the council have rejected it, so it won't be enough to go forward. You could argue that it's misleading.

Not at all. It's simply telling you what's in the regs.

Your formal reps and the NOR would be submitted by the authority anyway, but you MAY make further representations to the adjudicator. This naturally follows because any issues raised as regards the NOR could only be made to the adjudicator.

NOR received today. Quite generic like the 1st one, altho they have acknowledged some of the points I made. The most important answer I was looking for is why the sign that would have been next to my car had been removed, but they didn't address that at all.
They did at least admit "I note that the sign at your location was misleading and you believed that you were permitted to park in this bay as the signage stated loading only until 18:30 and you had parked just after 19:30"
The CEO's photos which show the above sign being the only sign in his photos and none others anywhere in the vicinity, are irrelevant now apparently.
I dunno though, if it is a risk of paying £0 or £160, I'd take the chance and go to tribunal, but it does state that I could get lumbered with costs if my challenge is deemed unreasonable. Whilst not as unreasonable as the ticket itself to any fair minded person, those double lines that separate the bays are there. I honestly didn't think to even look for them, since there was no other signs anywhere that would lead me to believe I should check. Might they consider my appeal to be unreasonable because of that?





That 2nd image is a bit blurred. Here's the transcript:

Clicking the Challenge now option on this page opens a screen requesting the PCN number and vehicle registration. Entering these details and clicking 'Continue' will allow the footage related to the PCN to be viewed.
Each parking place contains its own signs, which govern that place only. The road markings should always be checked in relation to the time plate. Where two different types of bay are joined together there will be two, three or four lines close together. The sign closest to the vehicle may not always be the relevant one for the bay you parked in.
Bays can be differentiated by road markings as well as time plates; a residents' bay is in general a continuous space with a dashed line parallel to the kerb, whereas a paid-for bay will have individually demarcated spaces and no markings parallel to the kerb, other than T-bars on the space divisions. In instances where different types of bays are next to each other, the start and end of each bay will be marked by white demarcation lines.
There is a high demand for resident parking space in the City of Westminster and to ensure that as much space as possible is made available for the use of permit holders, any vehicle parked in a permit holder's bay that a CEO is unable to confirm is covered by a valid permit on their handheld device, is a high priority for enforcement action. While this may sometimes seem harsh, the City Council needs to take this course of action to keep resident bays clear for use by permit holders, who pay an annual fee to park near their homes.
As a permit holder it is your responsibility to ensure that a current, valid permit is obtained for your vehicle. Any vehicle observed to be parked in a resident's bay without a valid permit may be issued a PCN.
If you do not have a residents' permit, and you need to park during controlled hours, you may do so in Pay-to-Park bays. These facilities are for general use and are intended to allow short term stays. If you need to park outside controlled hours, you may do so free of charge on single yellow lines and in Pay-to-Park bays.
It remains the motorists' responsibility to ensure they have parked correctly and adhere to the restrictions in place or may be liable to receive a PCN.
You must now either pay the PCN or appeal the City Council's decision to the London Tribunals adjudication service before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice.
I am able to offer you a further 14 days, from the date of this letter, to pay the PCN at the reduced rate.
Please now make payment of £80.00. This is the discounted rate and the charge will revert to its full amount of £160.00 if we do not receive the 50% discounted payment within the specified 14 day period.
Payment can be made by:
• Online at http://www.westminster.gov.uk/paypcn
• Visa / Delta / MasterCard / Maestro / Switch by calling Parking Services on 020 7823 4567. Lines are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
• Cheque or Postal Order made payable to 'City of Westminster'. This should be sent to Parking Services, PO Box 351, Sheffield, S98 1TU. Please state the PCN number on the back of the cheque/PO.
• In person at any Post Office in Westminster. Details of branch locations can be found at www.westminster.gov.uk/postoffice.
If you want to appeal to an Environment and Traffic Adjudicator you can make your appeal online at www.londontribunals.gov.uk. Please ensure that you quote the unique appeal verification code from the header of this letter and follow the on-line instructions on how to complete the appeal.
Alternatively you can complete and return the attached appeal form directly to London Tribunals, PO Box 460, Hartlepool TS24 4JE. Please read the guidance notes before completing the form. Do not send the appeal form to us.
There is no charge for making an appeal, but the Adjudicator may award costs if you or the City Council have been wholly unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious.

The rest of the NOR pl.

I have yet to see an appellant's appeal classed as "frivolous" in all the time I have been posting on this and the old Pepipoo website.  How can it possibly be frivolous ! You saw the sign and it mislead you.

Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.

I still don't understand why councils cannot get the very, very simple requirements of the Appeals regs included within NORs.

You appeal rights are misstated IMO. These are:

A statutory right to have a valid appeal registered if made no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date the NOR is served;

The right to submit an appeal outside this period with reasons for lateness and request the adjudicator to register, despite it being late.

This is not contained within the body of the NOR as any simple review of its contents shows.

But what about the forms that have been attached? IMO these are not part of the NOR, but let's speculate that the authority would claim that these are to be considered part of the NOR for compliance purposes. Would this assist their case?

With a smorgasbord of references such as:

You have 28 days to appeal; (but no base date given)
You have 28 days from receiving the NOR to do so(again incorrect. Nothing to do with when you receive, everything to do with the presumed date of service in law. AND it's not 28 days from..!);

Definitely not.

A clear PI IMO.

They short change you by not including what they MUST, and then bang on about courts, warrants, bailiffs etc. which has no place in the regs. It's contemptible, but c'est la vie.

IMO, you have very strong procedural grounds.

As regards the contravention, do the adjudicator a favour and condense to the essentials.
***is a one-way street and I passed a traffic sign just as I pulled in to park. This stated that the bay was unrestricted (I parked at *** and restrictions ceased at ***). I acted upon this sign.

The authority's case is that I was not within this bay, but had parked in a bay restricted to residents and that as I did not hold a permit I was in contravention.

I submit that I did not know that I had parked in a different bay because I had not noticed any road markings to this effect and had not passed any other traffic sign to this effect. I therefore ask the adjudicator to consider their photos and decide that indeed the markings were not sufficiently clear to meet the required compliance test and allow my appeal on these grounds. At this point, I would refer to my previous statement 'and had not passed any other traffic sign to this effect' and consider my evidence which is Google Street View images from 2024 and *****(every year you can find). You will notice that in accordance with best and recommended practice (Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3) the council had placed a 'Resident's' traffic sign at the exact point at which the restriction changes. But when this disappeared for whatever reason between *** and ***(date of your contravention) they decided not to replace and, as can be seen, neither did they enhance the end-bay markings to compensate.

I submit that this is improper and grounds for finding that the markings did not meet their LATOR duties.

I would add that I have had assistance in putting this appeal together because as an ordinary motorist acronyms such as LATOR and terms such as substantial compliance and procedural impropriety do not feature in day to day conversation. But the essence of my appeal goes to what I would call the simple issue of fairness. Is it fair that the deterioration of road markings and traffic signs is overseen by the same council as stands to benefit from the same which invariably leads to motorists making genuine errors.

Some thoughts.

Wait for others.

You guys are fantastic, thank you so much!
I'm gonna need to read over this a few times and try to understand better what you are saying, so I can prepare for the tribunal.
Yes, all of the documents that I posted yesterday were in the envelope with the NOR.

I parked here on Friday night just gone (further down, definitely in a loading bay). I did notice on my way past that the loading until 6:30pm sign that I was parked under when I got this ticket has also been removed now (post #33). Not that it is of much relevance to me now, but why on earth are they removing the signs?
I'm working away all this week, so I'll use my evenings try to figure out what to do next to take it forward to tribunal. Cheers.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/westminster-parking-ticket/msg129130/#msg129130