Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: hellojeeves on December 05, 2023, 08:44:31 am
-
Well done ! Needless to say, they won't do anything to the signs, as then they might not make so much money.
-
Good news! They came back to my formal response to say they were cancelling the PCN! Presumably don't want the hassle of going to London Tribunals where they might actually make them fix the issue.
Thank you all for the help and advice.
-
I
kindly therefore request that.....
-
Thank you! That makes complete sense. One point of clarification is that I did not pay a parking ticket as the paid parking bays are actually free during the time period I was there. It applies 10-13 and 14-16 Monday to Saturday and I was parked there at 13:41.
I have drafted a proposed response below, very grateful for any feedback or changes:
"I am writing to formally contest the parking Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me under reference number FR60945661 on November 24, 2023. I believe that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of this notice warrant a reevaluation, and I request that you reconsider the decision to uphold this PCN.
I acknowledge that I was parked in a designated 'Permit Holders WSS only bay'; however, my decision to park was based on the information presented on the traffic sign nearby, which allows for paid parking. The sign indicated that a ticket was required between 10am-1pm and 2pm-4pm on the day in question. As it was between 1pm and 2pm when I parked there, I did not purchase a ticket. I fully complied with the displayed information and parked my vehicle during this legally acceptable period.
Upon receiving the notice, I carefully reviewed the details provided by your authority. It has since come to my attention that the council has failed to maintain the crucial parking place dividing lines adequately, which demarcate the paid parking bays from the residents permit bays. The markings on the road have almost entirely faded, making it extremely difficult for drivers to discern the boundaries of the parking bays without prior awareness of its existence. This lack of maintenance is a crucial factor that should be considered in evaluating the validity of the issued notice.
Moreover, I assert that the sign in question was misleading and did not conform to the recommended formatting outlined in the Traffic Signs Manual. The sign's placement, in proximity to my parked vehicle, naturally led me to believe that it applied to the adjacent bay. It was only after receiving the authority's response and scrutinising the markings under closer examination that I realised the sign applying to my bay was located much further down the road and away from my vehicle.
I am confident that a fair and thorough examination of the circumstances will reveal that the combination of faded markings and the misleading sign wholly contributed to my parking in a Permit Holders WSS only bay. It is evident that the conditions at the time of the alleged offence were highly ambiguous and created confusion for drivers genuinely attempting to adhere to parking regulations.
I am prepared to escalate this matter to London Tribunals if necessary, as I firmly believe that the failure to maintain the crucial parking place dividing lines and the deviation from best practices outlined in the Traffic Signs Manual are serious issues that warrant reconsideration.
I kindly request that you review this representation with due diligence and take the aforementioned factors into account when determining the validity of the PCN. I trust that a fair assessment will result in the cancellation of the penalty.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to a favourable resolution."
-
It's not a shared use bay, it's a permit holder's only bay.
How can they use 12s and claim that the basis of the contravention is failing to to comply with one of the restrictions(and the wrong one, should be 16) without showing that the 'other' shared use was not in effect!
Anyway OP, IMO your reps must acknowledge what is the case i.e. you were parked in a 'Permit Holders WSS only bay'. No point fudging it. However, you parked just beyond a traffic sign which permitted parking subject to paying. This is the sign which you saw and acted upon and the authority acknowledge that you made a payment of £X at *****.
The authority's case is that you should have known that, despite its proximity to your car, this sign did not apply to your bay. They have disregarded the council's own failings in not maintaining the crucial parking place dividing lines - which only became apparent to you after the event on receipt of the authority's response and looking at these markings under a microscope- and formatting the sign so as to reinforce the separation of restrictions at this point, as recommended by the Traffic Signs Manual.
-
Unfortunate you did not keep a copy. Any recollections at all as it may be that they failed to consider?
NTO is ok.
-
Additional photos are also viewable through https://walthamocm.itsvc.co.uk/PCN and by entering the above PCN number and reg
-
NTO
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@Hippocrates I don't have a record of the original challenge unfortunately as it was via web form and you don't get a copy. I should have saved it sorry. I've attached the full NTO and their response to the challenge. I also don't have the original PCN sorry it appears my partner dumped it.
Will add NTO in next post
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please show your original informal challenge as I cannot see it. And the whole of the PCN and the whole of the NTO.
-
Just bumping this in case @Incandescent or anyone else has the opportunity to advise :) thank you!
-
Hello all - my NTO has come in. I have attached the cover page (notice date is 04/01/2024) and the page detailing possible grounds of representations. Grateful for any advice in pulling together a response on this given the earlier information within the thread. Thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you both. I am going to appeal. I will update for advice once the NTO had come through in the coming weeks.
-
Those road markings are totally unacceptable, and I wouuld expect an adjudicator to agree. Councils have a duty, just like motorists, to operate enforcement fairly, and here it's just a trap. Also there is the point that the two bays should have their respective signs on the same pole side-by-side.
I would take them to London Tribunals if it was my PCN, but of course you have to risk the full PCN penalty, and it's your money.
-
There is a very strong argument that the signage is insufficient there should really be an upright sign on the boarder showing the different restrictions in each direction
-
Got my own pictures today. Clearly highly faded but just about visible. Do I have a case here do we think? I genuinely didn't see these when I parked and it even took me a while to find when I knew where it was ;D
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks so much! Looking at the old Google street image I realise I can just about barely make the lines out on the PCN photo provided. It is extremely faded, but just about visible, I genuinely did not see it and when I returned to look again I still could not see it. Will try to get my own pictures as I think these actually make it out to be better than it actually is. Do you think there is still a case if they are just barely visible like this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here is where you parked on Barrett Road. The sign allowing pay-parking is right beside the bay divider, the double-dashed line perpendicular to the kerb. I had to go back to the GSV March 2019 view to get a good view as most of the views cars are obscuring it. Were you not aware of this divider marking ? The council have not followed best-practice here. At the divider, they should have mounted two signs, side by side, each on marking with an arrow (left or right) the parking restrictions for each bay. But, as we all know, they do nothing because the PCN penalty money is so attractive.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/P9Tnk3BQvJJpPrcRA
The marking looks pretty worn in 2019. If it has disappeared you have a winning case to take to London Tribunals, but you'll have to go there and take a photo, as later GSV views are obscured and also of 2022. There is no later view.
This white SUV is on the borderline
https://maps.app.goo.gl/uxqq6WsAD4cX4PvN6
If you want to take the matter further, you must wait for the Notice to Owner sent by post to the address on your V5. Is this up-to-date ? At the NtO stage, you submit your reps again, but this time informed by this forum. The key thing is the obscuration of the bay divider by parked cars, plus the signs not being mounted in accordance with best practice. The discount option is lost if you do this, although the council may re-offer it to avoid encouraging you to go to London Tribunals. If you enjoy a fight, then proceed. If you consider it to be too much of a hassle, then pay-up. Because 99% of motorists pay-up, the councils just carry on with their dodgy practices, and ruthlessly game the system to maximise the penalty payments.
-
Hi all,
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Number: FR60945661
Vehicle Registration Number: BW67JFZ
I recently received a parking PCN for parking without a valid permit on Barrett Road in Walthamstow. On this street, there is an area with paid parking and an area with permit parking. I would have been legally parked in the paid parking area at the time of the incident, however the council are claiming I was in a permit area. There is no clear road marking to mark where the paid parking ends and the permit begins other than roadside signs several meters apart, one for permit parking and one for paid parking. As shown in the picture I was about 1m away from the paid parking sign and about 2m away from the permit sign. I have visited the street since and am still genuinely unsure where it actually transitions from one to the other.
The first attached image shows where my car was parked (with the paid parking sign on right and the permit sign on left). The second image is taken from the position of the paid parking sign and shows there are no road markings to show where the permit parking begins.
I made an informal representation which was rejected on the following grounds:
"According to the Civil Enforcement Officer’s (CEO`s) notes the vehicle was issued with the
PCN for being parked without displaying a valid Permit in a Permit Parking Bay.
I have carefully considered your case; however, the circumstances outlined in your
correspondence are not sufficient grounds for cancellation of the PCN in question. It is the
motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the restrictions in force at any given location and time.
Please be advised, along with the white bay markings there is adequate signage displaying
the restrictions in place. If a motorist is unsure of the restrictions in place they should not
assume it is okay to park, safe and legal parking should be sought to avoid incurring any
PCNs.
It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that a Permit is properly completed as stated
in the instructions and is displayed properly and securely at the front of the vehicle’s
windscreen or on the inside of the kerbstone window so that all the details can be seen from
outside the vehicle.
A CEO would observe a vehicle in a Permit Parking Bay for a minimum period of five minutes
before issuing a PCN and in this case the Officer had observed the vehicle in question at
13:31 and issued the PCN at 13:41.
If a motorist is unable to park in accordance with the regulations then alternative safe and
legal parking should be sought and used. I am therefore satisfied that this PCN was issued
correctly and you remain liable for the charge."
I now need to decide if I want to wait until a Notice to Owner is issued and make a formal appeal or to just pay the fine. To me it seems unreasonable to expect people to know this was a permit area as there are no road markings or clear signage showing this.
[attachment deleted by admin]