Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mkdon on July 28, 2024, 04:01:42 pm
-
Update: Appeal started to the tribunal on 15 October which dissed the Notice of Rejection for referring to a 'loading bay' and that the vehicle was first seen at 20:08 but PCn says 20:15 and what the Rejection doesn't say which was anything within the representations.
Second ground was that the TMO (which I hadn't seen) didn't prohibit blue badge parking.
Do not contest form filed on 25 october; PCN cancelled.
thanks for your help, apologies for slow responses ive just returned back from wales
-
This is one of the more hopeless cases for them and they've seen sense.
-
Update: Appeal started to the tribunal on 15 October which dissed the Notice of Rejection for referring to a 'loading bay' and that the vehicle was first seen at 20:08 but PCn says 20:15 and what the Rejection doesn't say which was anything within the representations.
Second ground was that the TMO (which I hadn't seen) didn't prohibit blue badge parking.
Do not contest form filed on 25 october; PCN cancelled.
-
Perhaps...
This is a response of the worst kind, I'd carry on.
Procedural impropriety;
Contravention did not occur.
The contravention grounds in the PCN are given as:
Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force.
However, in response the NOR states that:
1. According to the CEO's notes this vehicle was issued with a PCN for being parked in a loading bay without loading/unloading.
It also states that:
2. According to the [same CEO's] notes the vehicle was issued with a PCN because the vehicle was parked where a loading ban was in force.
As these comments are mutually exclusive, it is impossible for the recipient to know which, if either, applies. Having said this:
If 1 applies, then this does not relate to the actual grounds in the PCN and therefore is a clear procedural impropriety.
But if 2 applies this similarly does not refer to the grounds of contravention which requires that both waiting and loading restrictions are in place and not simply a location where solely a 'loading ban was in force'.
Having given these incoherent references to the grounds of contravention and contents of the CEO's notes, the NOR then fails to show that the authority has given my detailed representations consideration, instead these are dismissed as follows:
Whilst I appreciate your circumstances, they do not warrant cancellation of the PCN.
In addition to these procedural improprieties, I would also refer the adjudicator to my original representations regarding the CEO's photographic evidence which confirms the absence of compliant lines, including kerb markings, which is reinforced by the CEO's photo of an 'At any time' loading sign whose use is redundant because were the markings clear then no such sign is required for 'double blips' and if the CEO believed that only single blips were in situ then this sign is unauthorised and unenforceable by virtue of not specifying the restricted hours. It is also in a different road.
-
By a fluke here's another case in that bit of Poplars but the contravention is an 01 not an 02 which blows up yours even more if we need it.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-01-parked-in-restricted-street-poplars-road-e17/
-
There was also a no loading sign in Poplars Road, which seems to have disappeared. The council's pics show no sequence of blips. Their rejection is insulting.
If they contest this I would hope costs are considered.
thanks, i will do,
-
There was also a no loading sign in Poplars Road, which seems to have disappeared. The council's pics show no sequence of blips. Their rejection is insulting.
If they contest this I would hope costs are considered.
-
I think the kerb marks are worn beyond the point of substantial compliance. I can be your free representative at the NtO and tribunal stages. (oops, using my phone earlier and missed that there was already an NoR, I can be your representative. email mrmustard@zoho.com)
-
I doubt they will contest this. Register the appeal and request a personal or telephone hearing.
I would send:
1. I would like draw attention to the authority's rejection of my representations. It is clear they have not addressed them but just send template text that is also careless in including material from a different alleged contravention (loading bay).
2. To recap, my representations are as below and I believe they are solid grounds that as the father of a blue badge holder (my son) I was entitled to rely on the exemption for waiting on yellow lines owing to the lack of any evidence of a loading restriction at our parking place.
reps
-
Yh I noticed too they didn't address any of the issues I raised, it's basically the same response as their initial rejection.
As for the tribunal, should my key argument be lack or blips on road or that it's faint and why single blip needs a sign?
They've left irrelevant stuff in from a loading bay contravention, which to say the least shows lack of care in adapting boilerplate.
And it is boilerplate - they've not addressed your representation.
The discount is on offer but I would take this to the tribunal.
(https://i.imgur.com/I5AGMdT.jpeg)
-
They've left irrelevant stuff in from a loading bay contravention, which to say the least shows lack of care in adapting boilerplate.
And it is boilerplate - they've not addressed your representation.
The discount is on offer but I would take this to the tribunal.
(https://i.imgur.com/I5AGMdT.jpeg)
-
Hi guys
I got a letter from the council today, they've rejected my appeal again. I've attached image of the correspondence. Can anyone advice what I should include in my appeal to the adjudicator
https://ibb.co/5rQ1k8J
https://ibb.co/Gdz51Y8
https://ibb.co/1Z3JR3Q
https://ibb.co/cvVdhXH
Thanks
-
Wait for others to have a look but my approach is to home in on their rejection and say why it doesn't work.
thanks, this is my final draft, i think ive covered all the points you mentioned
To whom it may concern
I am again challenging the PCN on the grounds the contravention did not occur. There is no signage restricting the double yellow lines for blue badge parking.
You refer to yellow kerb markings in pictures taken by your CEO but as you can see its extremely faint and barely visible, furthermore there are no clearly marked sequence of kerb blips along that stretch of Poplars Road to alert drivers to a loading restriction.
There is also no 'no loading' sign on Poplars Road, which is a dead end, separated by bollards from Lea Bridge Road. The sign provided by your CEO is on Lea Bridge Road and can ONLY be seen if you're on Lea Bridge road.
I thus consider this PCN totally invalid and that it should be cancelled with immediate effect.
Regards
-
Wait for others to have a look but my approach is to home in on their rejection and say why it doesn't work.
-
Cheers, I thought the more I include now the more likely they are to cancel it. I'll just send them what you've written above and should they still refuse then send my initial draft to adjudicator. Waltham forest council are very stubborn. The last 3 appeals I've one ended up taking over 12 months.
-
As I said, this is too complicated.
Look at the two CEO pics I posted - they say:
(https://i.imgur.com/oM4TIV6.png)
I say an adjudicator would agree with you that there wasn't anything clear to see and you didn't see it.
I would just say:
I am again challenging the PCN on the grounds that there I could see no signage restricting the double yellow lines for blue badge parking.
You refer to yellow kerb markings in pictures taken by your CEO but I can't see anything clear, and there is not a clearly marked sequence of kerb blips along that stretch of Poplars Road to alert drivers to a loading restriction.
There is also not a no loading sign in Poplars Road, which is a dead end, separated by posts from Lea Bridge Road.
I feel you have a duty to maintain adequate signage to enforce such a restriction on disabled drivers and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation of this PCN.
-
thanks,
ive amended it to this. let me know if its ok to send now
To whom it may concern
I wish to appeal against my NtO on the basis the contravention did not occur.
After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No loading at any time'. There are no well mark sequence of kerb blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.
It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic sign with a part-time loading restriction.
Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road.
My car was situated in CPZ BA. Furthermore, due to the bollards on the road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge road as cars cant enter or exit Poplars Road via the junction with Lea Bridge Road.
It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent belief because:
(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time' cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as to the extent of the loading restriction; or
(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb blips.
When either of the above is added to the lack of any further kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading' sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within CPZ.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
I thus consider this PCN totally invalid and that it should be cancelled with immediate effect.
Regards
-
Too complicated I think.
They are relying on the CEO pics but there are no blips obvious to a driver, the CEO pics don't show any well-marked sequence of blips there, and there is no no-loading sign on that part of the road, which is separated by posts from the main road.
You could say that you have reviewed Google Maps from the past and markings used to be well-painted and there was a no-loading sign in Poplars Road. These are now absent.
I would lose the stuff about a single blip and parking zones - not relevant in my view.
(https://i.ibb.co/M96MmNg/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-22-00.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/sH912Rs/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-21-49.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/xCQjXhd/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-22-27.png)
-
Hi
I have drafted the response below, is there anything i should add/remove?
To whom it may concern
I wish to appeal against my NtO on the bases the contravention did not occur.
First and foremost the blips on the kerb are faded and barely visible, it is your duty to maintain them so drivers can see them easily.
Secondly, the PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction, however as you can see from the picture, in the 35m of double yellow lines between the parking bays ending to the junction with Lea Bridge, there is only 1 single faded blip on the kerb,
The law states:
Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time; These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the part-time days and hours.
Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.
The fact the CEO presented evidence of a 'No loading at any time' sign, demonstrates they believed that the markings were single and needed a supplementary sign.
Furthermore, the 'No loading at any time' sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road. My car was situated in CPZ BA.
As there is no exit/entrance between Poplars Road & Lea Bridge Road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge Road. If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
I thus believe no contravention occurred and hence I displayed my blue badge so I could park on the double yellow lines.
-
While the traffic order map shows double yellows with double kerb clips in Polars Road, the associated info differentiates between Poplars Road and Lee Bridge Road, with Poplars said to be no waiting only.
This may be something to do with the installation of the posts, which are fairly recent. A no loading sign also disappeared from Poplars Road at this time (pic of it below). The order at the time turned all single yellows in Poplars into double yellows so while this was a double yellow there may be some conflict with what they intended.
So perhaps something to include.
But the primary issue IMO is simply the markings/signage or lack of leading you to park there and they really should at least use discretion.
(https://i.imgur.com/G6g5di6.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7aJm4CB.png)
-
Contravention did not occur.
The council's evidence as regards the contravention comprises the PCN, CEO's notes and photos.
After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No loading at any time'. There are no kerb blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.
It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic sign with a part-time loading restriction.
Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road.
My car was situated in CPZ BA.
It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent belief because:
(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time' cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as to the extent of the loading restriction; or
(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb blips.
When either of the above is added to the lack of any further kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading' sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within CPZ.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers mate, will draft something up this weekend.
-
Contravention did not occur.
The council's evidence as regards the contravention comprises the PCN, CEO's notes and photos.
After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No loading at any time'. There are no kerb blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.
It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic sign with a part-time loading restriction.
Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road.
My car was situated in CPZ BA.
It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent belief because:
(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time' cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as to the extent of the loading restriction; or
(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb blips.
When either of the above is added to the lack of any further kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading' sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within CPZ.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
Just some thoughts.
-
https://imgur.com/a/GvTQtIj
https://imgur.com/a/j1ggS0v
https://imgur.com/a/H7ySarX
https://imgur.com/a/BHWTJLm
-
My NtO came today
Please to post all sides of it here, redacting only yr name & address.
-
Hi
My NtO came today, can anyone advise what should my response be.
Shall I say the blips were faded or mention the sign is on Lea Bridge road and not the road I was on?
-
So there's a single blip.
OK.
It is meaningless in law unless it is accompanied by a traffic sign which gives those times during which the loading prohibition is in force.
There is NO evidence what times are prohibited, it MAY NOT as a matter of law be 'At any time'.
OP, it is really a straightforward issue. Forget about parking bays, they're irrelevant. DYL + single blip - part-time no loading traffic sign = 0.
Cheers mate
-
So there's a single blip.
OK.
It is meaningless in law unless it is accompanied by a traffic sign which gives those times during which the loading prohibition is in force.
There is NO evidence what times are prohibited, it MAY NOT as a matter of law be 'At any time'.
OP, it is really a straightforward issue. Forget about parking bays, they're irrelevant. DYL + single blip - part-time no loading traffic sign = 0.
-
OP, IMO the CEO, council and you are as confused as each other.
1. The PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction(it's not a loading 'bay' as you've called it, kerb markings indicate a prohibition against loading outside 'bays'). So, what's the law?
As I understand it the regs give the following:
Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time; These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the part-time days and hours.
Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that:
1 As the CEO has presented evidence of a 'No loading at any time' sign they believed that the markings were single and needed a supplementary sign, in this case 'No loading at any time'. But this sign is NOT permitted to be used with a single blip because you cannot have a full-time part-time restriction. This combination is not lawful. Which only leaves..
2. The CEO thought that there were double blips marked on the kerb. In which case as these in themselves signify a 'prohibition at all times' a supplementary photo of a sign whose purpose is rendered redundant by virtue of double blips is unnecessary and potentially confusing.
To compound this confusing picture, the photo of the redundant or incorrect 'No loading at any time' sign is situated in CPZ SB beyond the boundaries of CPZ BA and therefore the CEO, and based upon their response to your initial reps, the authority consider that the restriction signs within CPZs are interchangeable between CPZs.
to be honest im not sure whats going on either. all i know is when the parking bays end, there are double yellow lines stretching to the end of the road with only one yellow blip on the kerb which is barely visible
as for the signage, even if its legit, you can only see if it you was to enter from that side of the road ( which you cant due to bollards) or walk in that direction. i will wait for my NtO and then adjudicator if they still insist i have to pay it
-
OP, IMO the CEO, council and you are as confused as each other.
1. The PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction(it's not a loading 'bay' as you've called it, kerb markings indicate a prohibition against loading outside 'bays'). So, what's the law?
As I understand it the regs give the following:
Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time; These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the part-time days and hours.
Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that:
1 As the CEO has presented evidence of a 'No loading at any time' sign they believed that the markings were single and needed a supplementary sign, in this case 'No loading at any time'. But this sign is NOT permitted to be used with a single blip because you cannot have a full-time part-time restriction. This combination is not lawful. Which only leaves..
2. The CEO thought that there were double blips marked on the kerb. In which case as these in themselves signify a 'prohibition at all times' a supplementary photo of a sign whose purpose is rendered redundant by virtue of double blips is unnecessary and potentially confusing.
To compound this confusing picture, the photo of the redundant or incorrect 'No loading at any time' sign is situated in CPZ SB beyond the boundaries of CPZ BA and therefore the CEO, and based upon their response to your initial reps, the authority consider that the restriction signs within CPZs are interchangeable between CPZs.
-
You submitted an informal challenge to the PCN, and got the usual brush-off. If you want to take the matter further, you now have to wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit formal representations against it. However, as they say in their reply, the full £130 will be payable if they refuse these reps. On the downside for them though, is if they do reject your formal reps and don't re-offer the discount, it becomes a complete no-brainer for you to take them to London Tribunals because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs whatsoever.
So basically, if you are sufficiently aggreived, wait for the NtO and submit a formal representation. The NtO is sent to the name and address on the V5 Registration Certificate for the vehicle. Is this your vehicle and is the address up-to-date, because if you don't receive the NtO it will be game over.
Yes my vehicle and address is up to date. I will appeal it once i get my NtO, theyre trying their luck. how can they only have 1 faded yellow line for the entire 30 plus meters. also why is the sign ( on lea bridge road) no repeated the entire length of the no loading area. they should have 1 at either end so we can see it
-
You submitted an informal challenge to the PCN, and got the usual brush-off. If you want to take the matter further, you now have to wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit formal representations against it. However, as they say in their reply, the full £130 will be payable if they refuse these reps. On the downside for them though, is if they do reject your formal reps and don't re-offer the discount, it becomes a complete no-brainer for you to take them to London Tribunals because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs whatsoever.
So basically, if you are sufficiently aggreived, wait for the NtO and submit a formal representation. The NtO is sent to the name and address on the V5 Registration Certificate for the vehicle. Is this your vehicle and is the address up-to-date, because if you don't receive the NtO it will be game over.
-
Hi
The council finally emailed me, they rejected my initial appeal (see response below).
They said I can make a a Representation Notice to Owner, how do I do this? Isn't this same as my initial appeal?
https://imgur.com/a/3P5Ctjc
https://imgur.com/a/vfXxtvm
-
YOu might care to use this, or parts of it: -
Dear Sirs
Re PCN <number> dated <dd/mm/yyyy> served at <hr:mn> on Poplars Road
I deny liability for the above PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, due to totally inadequate signage
I was accompanying my autistic son who is a Blue Badge holder, and finding no parking available at the top of Poplars Road, parked just beyond the bay on the double-yellow lines as a Blue Badge holder is entitled to do.
On return to the car, I found the PCN and after walking around, found a No Loading sign approximately 25 metres away, on a lamppost by the main road where the now-blocked Poplars Road joins Lea Bridge Road. However, there were no visible yellow kerb markings to indicate there is a loading restriction as well as the double-yellow lines. Had these been visible, I would not have parked there. The council are under a duty to maintain signs and lines so that they are clear to motorists. Here they have not done so.
I therefore request that the PCN be immediately cancelled, and the council suspend enforcement until the carriageway markings are repainted.
YOurs faithfully
Thank you.
-
YOu might care to use this, or parts of it: -
Dear Sirs
Re PCN <number> dated <dd/mm/yyyy> served at <hr:mn> on Poplars Road
I deny liability for the above PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, due to totally inadequate signage
I was accompanying my autistic son who is a Blue Badge holder, and finding no parking available at the top of Poplars Road, parked just beyond the bay on the double-yellow lines as a Blue Badge holder is entitled to do.
On return to the car, I found the PCN and after walking around, found a No Loading sign approximately 25 metres away, on a lamppost by the main road where the now-blocked Poplars Road joins Lea Bridge Road. However, there were no visible yellow kerb markings to indicate there is a loading restriction as well as the double-yellow lines. Had these been visible, I would not have parked there. The council are under a duty to maintain signs and lines so that they are clear to motorists. Here they have not done so.
I therefore request that the PCN be immediately cancelled, and the council suspend enforcement until the carriageway markings are repainted.
YOurs faithfully
-
The kerb blips must be sufficiently clear to a motorist thinking of parking there. Here is the sign for No Loading: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4BKHkUTNfwpDtPPW9
You have the right to take them to London Tribunal on the worn kerb blips. If you do this, then you really need to prove they are virtually non-existent, but the photos you have posted do show them. They are not expected to be in perfect condition. My view is that you don't have a strong case, but others may differ, so wait a bit to see what they say, but don't miss the deadline to pay or submit reps.
Yeh il wait but if you see the pics the warden took, they are even more faded than ones on GSV. It shouldn't have to be you only notice them if they are pointed out to you. They should be easily visible for anyone to see. The sign showing no loading is by the no entry sign into the road I was parked on, even if you wanted to enter you can't because of the bollards so how do they expect anyone to read that sign? Its obvious the sign is for lea bridge not Poplars road.
-
I've drafted the following. Is it OK to send as my initial appeal
I wish to appeal against this pcn due to lack of/poor quality signage.
I had turned onto Poplars and was unable to see any spaces in the parking pays
The only signs visible were the ones saying 'permit holders only' and 'Controlled Zone'
As I had my son who is autistic with me, I parked on the double yellows and displayed his blue badge. This was adjacent to the last parking bay.
As your own pictures show, there are no yellow lines on the pavement to indicate it's a loading bay
Furthermore the picture of the 'No Loading' signage is at the very end of the road on the junction with Lea Leabridge Road and only visible for those driving on Lea Bridge road.
I thus believe this ticket should be cancelled due to no signage and/or lack of clear signage due to there being no yellow lines on the curb on Poplars road and the signage with the 'No Loading" being on Lea Bridge road and only visible for those driving on Lea Bridge road.
Regards
-
The kerb blips must be sufficiently clear to a motorist thinking of parking there. Here is the sign for No Loading: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4BKHkUTNfwpDtPPW9
You have the right to take them to London Tribunal on the worn kerb blips. If you do this, then you really need to prove they are virtually non-existent, but the photos you have posted do show them. They are not expected to be in perfect condition. My view is that you don't have a strong case, but others may differ, so wait a bit to see what they say, but don't miss the deadline to pay or submit reps.
-
But shouldn't they have to be clear? The picture the warden took is even more fainter than the GSV, you can barely see anything.
Also the sign they got is not even on the road I was parked on. As far as I was aware I was on just double yellows immediately after the last parking bay.
-
Well, sorry, but I see one on the first picture in your listing ! And here they are in GSV dated April 2022.
Yes, they are worn, but visible, so I think you'd struggle to convince an adjudicator.
-
https://imgur.com/a/J9rm8Pc
https://imgur.com/a/5SBprKy
https://imgur.com/a/4dG29P0
As you can see, are are no lines on curb in the pics the council took
-
Please get and post the council photos. Gsv shows double kerb blips but they seem in poor condition. We need to see exactly where you were parked
-
https://imgur.com/a/pWYfK3C
https://imgur.com/a/uAHxo6E
-
You haven't posted the PCN, so please do so, all sides.
-
Hi
I got a ticket last night for being parked on Poplars Road E17, its a no through road with bollards at the end preventing cars to get onto Lea Bridge road.
I had parked outside number 57 on double yellows ( see second pic) and displayed a blue badge, it was just inches away from the bays which were all taken. I set my timer and left.
I got a ticket saying it is restricted road however my car was sandwiched between 2 signs (see link below) one said 'Controlled Zone 8am - 6.30pm' and the other further down was one saying permit holders only (see attachment)
There were NO signs saying it was restricted or no loading. The warden however did take a picture of a sign on the corner of the road which is facing the main road saying no loading. As you can see from google maps that's on Lea Bridge road and has a further 2 more posts saying the same thing in in close proximity with bright yellow lines on the floor. This is expected as there a row of shops there.
It seems the warden is trying to apply that sign to Poplars road. Can anyone advise how to to best appeal? Even if that sign was meant for Poplars road its so far away that its impossible for anyone to see it. The road becomes 1 lane at the end so no car can actually go there as there so space to do a U turn and even if you were to walk up, you wont see it as the road bends to the right whilst the pavement is straight.
The warden did me fav too but taking pics showing there are no yellow lines on the curb thus how is anyone meant to know its restricted?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5765616,-0.0117954,3a,75y,69.25h,88.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKVjIBAGkfGDJMjTAikwC3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
https://imgur.com/a/sYwGSNP
https://imgur.com/lJTHQbP
https://imgur.com/hnhAdg6
https://imgur.com/q2NhWTT
https://imgur.com/PXG8uzv
https://imgur.com/JPU7Bgj
https://imgur.com/HriGOT9
https://imgur.com/YspLnkt