Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: FuzzedRinggit on November 19, 2024, 03:25:29 pm
-
A great result Mr Mustard, and my thanks again for winning for us!
-
One of my six tribunal hearings yesterday. case 2250181269
The Appellant was represented at the hearing by Mr Dishman.
The vehicle was certainly parked marginally outside the bay markings.
The Traffic Management Order provides as follows :-
14. Every vehicle left in a parking place in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Order shall so stand:
(a) in the case of a parking place in relation to which special provisions as to the manner of standing of a vehicle in that place are specified in column 6 of the Schedule as to be in accordance with those provisions;
(b) that every part of the vehicle is within the limits of a parking space which shall be an appropriate parking place in relation to the parking device in which has been or should have been inserted any coin for the purpose of payment of the parking charge or the displaying of a parking permit.
17 Updated to Amendment No. 120 -202017 (c) in the case of any other parking place - (Š if the parking place is not in a one-way street, that the left or near side of the vehicle is adjacent to the left hand edge of the carriageway; and that the distance between the edge of the carriageway and the nearest wheel of the vehicle is not more than 300 millimetres; (d) that no part of the vehicle obstructs any vehicular means of ingress to or egress from any premises adjacent to the side of the road on which the vehicle is waiting.
This rather unusual wording appears to restrict the requirement to park within the markings of a bay to payment bays. The remaining limitations on other cases is in the form of exceeding a certain measurement from the edge of the carriageway. Whether or not the vehicle was in breach of such a condition, that is not the contravention for which the PCN was issued, The contravention for which the PCN was issued is not supported by the TMO and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
-
Thanks StanfordMan, I have emailed Mr Mustard with the details after all, much easier to let the experts take over!
-
It doesn't matter as you'll be putting all grounds into the appeal. I'd just choose contravention didn't occur.
I would hand it over to Mr Mustard though as he's offered. You can read his exploits here:
https://lbbspending.blogspot.com
-
Thanks for your help on this case.
I have just logged on in order to go to the London Tribunals. It is asking me my reason for appealing.
Do I state the procedural errors (as detailed by Andersen above) only, or do I also include the lack of signage too which we ascertained in the first appeal? Do I have to hedge my bets in these cases?
Thank you,
FR
-
And as the discount hasn't been re-offered it's a no-brainer to register an appeal.
+++111
Total and absolute no-brainer !
-
Another procedural error in the written NOR..
..28 days from the date of service....
No, beginning on!
This error is also reproduced, surprising as it might seem, in the Your Right to Appeal form.
So, you have two procedural improprieties, one in the NTO and one in the NOR.
And as the discount hasn't been re-offered it's a no-brainer to register an appeal.
-
I would accept Mr Mustard's offer - you can appear jointly.
-
Hi MrMustard
I'm happy to go to tribunal myself, as long as I know what I'm saying?
-
If you want free tribunal representation please email the unredacted notice of rejection to mrmustard@zoho.com
-
All images...
https://imgur.com/a/EDvVneO
Apologies if I'm missing anything, I will try and put it right. All help much appreciated.
FR
-
Please read the READ ME FIRST instructions at the top of the first page of the forum. For example:
3. Post the PCN and all subsequent notices or correspondence. The easiest way is to take pictures with your phone. There is no upload space on this site so you will have to upload to a picture hosting site (such as https://imgur.com or similar) and post links
You can use the "add image" icon to embed images in your post:
Pl post the full NOR, all we've seen is the first page. There's already an arguable procedural impropriety in the NTO* which means that they're capable of c**k-ups, let's see if they've done similar in the NOR.
As the NOR is dated Thurs 27 March then you have until 27 April to register an appeal.
*- page 2, last para! '28 days beginning with the date of this notice..'. Nope. Beginning on date of service. Although the correct reference is stated on page 1, how are you supposed to know which is correct?
28 days beginning on 6 March ....ends on 2 April. Whereas ..
28 days beginning on date of service...ends on 6 April.
4 days is a hell of a difference.
-
My files seem to be too large so I'll post the full appeal here...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks Andersen, and from what I've seen I agree that the scrutineering here is first class. Coming from an industry which does not, I appreciate that this is not the type of work I am used to.
Spoiler: I work for a council. Just not in the same department!
Here they are...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As you have received a NOR then you have limited time in which to act to register an appeal if this is your preferred option.
Sorry, but we need to see all sides of the NTO and NOR. A significant proportion of successful appeals is attributable to procedural improprieties arising from NORs and to a lesser degree NTOs which have nothing to do with the contravention itself. That's just the way things are.
And you won't find better scrutineers of these docs than here.
-
4 pages in the foothills and then the enforcement process was given to you as a link and you were asked to wait for the NTO before posting again.
Then radio silence until your last post.
Post the full Notice of Rejection and NTO.
OK, a little harsh as this clearly isn't my day job and the last thing I wanted to do was upset anyone, but here's the NTO.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
4 pages in the foothills and then the enforcement process was given to you as a link and you were asked to wait for the NTO before posting again.
Then radio silence until your last post.
Post the full Notice of Rejection and NTO.
-
Hi Stamfordman
I replied to the Notice to Owner with what had been said on her previously. Sorry, I took heed of the advice earlier in this thread to not clog up too much of this board with the ins and outs. Is there something different I should have done at that stage then?
I'm happy to go to tribunal, just not sure how to word it if that letter was their response. I presumed that someone different would read my latest appeal have have the foresight to see that it isn't legal to give me a ticket for the reason they gave, but it reads as if it's been the same person each time?
-
Why didn't you come back here first?
What did you send?
Have they refoffered the discount?
The next step if you don't want to pay is to register an appeal with London Tribunals. Opt for a personal/telephone/video hearing.
You don't have to upload any evidence to start with.
-
Did they send you a notice to owner? What is this latest letter in response to?
Sorry yes, this is the reply to the appeal I made when I received the Notice to Owner!
-
Did they send you a notice to owner? What is this latest letter in response to?
-
Well, Bromley have replied to my appeal. Here's the letter. Spoiler: they aren't cancelling the PCN.
I will make representation. Any advice helpful!
Ringgitt
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Spotted these cases in Bromley from yesterday's tribunal.
Shows how some adjudicators are wise to this and that an appeal needs to be prepared for those who aren't.
The first allowed case is actually for signed bays; the second (refused by Mr Burke) I think is in one the unsigned bays as with the case in this thread.
------------
Case reference 2240567623
Authority London Borough of Bromley
Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
Contravention time 16:45:00
Contravention location Elmfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the driver Mr xxxxx.
His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay markings.
It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking place is divided into parking places by white lines within the bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is (and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the Appel is therefore allowed.
(https://i.ibb.co/C5YB2zYG/br2.png)
----------
Case reference 2240508511
Authority London Borough of Bromley
Contravention date 06 May 2024
Contravention time 13:38:00
Contravention location Murray Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that bushes and trees overhung the space making it impossible to park any closer to the kerb. They say that they needed to allow space at the passenger side to allow their 6 year old son who is autistic to alight. The Appellant asserts a number of failures by the Enforcement Authority in road maintenance.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer which show a clear example of the contravention with the vehicle proud of the lateral bay markings by something like 18ins to 2ft.
The photographs do show overhanging foliage. There may be merit in the Appellant’s criticisms. However, if for any reason there is insufficient space to fit the entire vehicle within the bay markings, then the bay is not available and the motorist must find an alternative place to park.
The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
(https://i.ibb.co/S77XFDtW/br1.png)
-
OP, it's only confusing if you attach weight to the council's ignorance.
This is the enforcement process:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process
I don't wish to sound harsh, but this thread is already 4 pages long and you don't yet have a NTO. We know that some councils' actions can be frustrating, but c'est la vie.
Pl just wait for the NTO.
-
They are yes. The tone of the letter makes it sound like there is no other option but to pay the fine, no mention of the NTO or what to do if you disagree with their decision.
It also stinks that they don't change the website to show that there's been an informal appeal made. I had to ask on here what happens next because the website makes it look like you have to appeal on there again because there's no update. Totally confusing.
-
This is petty. I have checked the website and they are still asking for the £60.
-
Yes I am and the addresses are correct. Thanks for your help.
-
NTO is notice to owner and is the formal document served on the registered keeper.
I expect we've asked you but are you the keeper and is the V5C logbook address correct.
Nothing you can do until you get this.
-
No I don't think I have (NTO = Notice of rejection?) The only letter I have received is this one above from the local authority so I presume no NTO.
I'll wait for that to arrive, thank you!
-
I think that letter is a reply to your letter following up their initial rejection.
You haven't yet been served with an NTO? Confirm this.
-
Hello all
This may seem like a silly question, but I am going to appeal this officially but I can't work out how to do it?
There's nothing on the letter that came back with my appeal and when I log on to the Bromley website it just asks about an 'appeal' which I've already done.
If I am taking this further, where do I go to lodge the appeal please?
Thank you.
-
;D
I am particularly liking the General Melchett analogy!
I will carry on and appeal further, and of course update here. I wish there was a compensation scheme for the amount of time this has taken but more to the point, I'm not vulnerable and I can spend the time and effort battling this. There are thousands of people who must be trapped in having to pay an illegal ticket, and that's not fair.
Thanks again for your help Mr Andersen.
-
The letter makes it sound like that because it's free to park, they don't need a Parking 'P' sign. Is that true?
Free for what class of vehicles, motorcycles, HGVs, buses, taxis etc?
It's nonsense and they either know and are being deceitful or don't know and are being stupid. Either is not acceptable for a public body empowered to penalise motorists.
Carry on IMO.
There's another current thread where the authority adopted the General Melchett approach(Blackadder Goes Forth) i.e. 'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us [the authority] through' only to cancel the PCN once the owner on our advice had registered their appeal with the adjudicator at which point the authority, as with all bullies who suddenly realise that they're no longer judges in their own cause, cancelled the PCN.
But when they do in your case don't expect an apology.
-
So this letter arrived today. The letter makes it sound like that because it's free to park, they don't need a Parking 'P' sign. Is that true?
What do I do now? It doesn't make it clear what I need to do other than pay it which I'm presuming I shouldn't do!!
Thanks for your help everyone.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Then if I don't get it after 6 months what happens? Does it automatically get cancelled? :D :D :D :D
They may try it on, and serve one to you, but if its over the time limit, you just submit reps that it is Out-of-Time, and they should then cancel it. If they don't you take them to London Tribunals, win, and ask for costs because they would have passed the test of acting "wholly unreasonably".
-
Then if I don't get it after 6 months what happens? Does it automatically get cancelled? :D :D :D :D
-
Only the people at the council know how busy they are. There's no imminent statutory deadline, so you just have to wait.
er, no it's 6 months
...which isn't imminent, so the OP just has to wait.
-
Actually, the 'relevant date' is the date on which the PCN was served.
2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date.
d)in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.
-
NtOs must be served within 6 months from date of alleged contravention. This essentially mimics the limit on a summons to magistrates courts of 6 months.
It's actually six months from the date of service of the PCN, which may or may not be the same as the data of the contravention.
Sorry I got this a bit wrong !
-
NtOs must be served within 6 months from date of alleged contravention. This essentially mimics the limit on a summons to magistrates courts of 6 months.
It's actually six months from the date of service of the PCN, which may or may not be the same as the data of the contravention.
-
Hi
does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO?
Only the people at the council know how busy they are. There's no imminent statutory deadline, so you just have to wait.
er, no it's 6 months
-
NtOs must be served within 6 months from date of alleged contravention. This essentially mimics the limit on a summons to magistrates courts of 6 months.
-
Hi
does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO?
Only the people at the council know how busy they are. There's no imminent statutory deadline, so you just have to wait.
-
Hi
does anyone know how long it takes to issue the NTO? I've still not heard anything!
Thank you.
-
They don't have to reply and may just issue the NTO in due course.
-
Hi StamfordMan
I have already sent the email to Bromley with the exact wording. Do they have to reply within a certain amount of time?
The V5C logbook etc are all correct. Nothing has changed in many years!
Judging by the letter's wording about the slow reply and how lax they have been, I imagine they won't!
Thanks again everyone.
-
I see you now know Mr Anderson - he knows a fairy tale when he sees one.
The next step is to wait for the NTO and make representations (not an appeal - that's when you go to the tribunal).
Are the V5C logbook name and address correct.
You may as well send that clarification email - it will form the basis of reps if they ignore it.
-
Thanks for this gentlemen, I will take this to appeal and also write the letter... although the reply says that they won't enter into correspondence, I am tempted to just send the letter anyway and see what they come up with...
I will update what happens!
-
Mind-blowing ignorance.
I'd be tempted to reply.
Dear Sir,
PCN ******
Thank you for your letter dated **** rejecting my representations made on ***.
I have read the letter and should be grateful for clarification of your reasoning in order to inform any formal representations.
Is it the authority's position that the road markings at issue are not required to have an associated upright traffic sign to indicate the times of any parking restriction, whether payment is required and whether reserved to specified users but that any motorist should and is required to infer that the timings align with those for the adjacent yellow lines, that payment is not required and that any class of vehicle may park simply based upon the placement and content of 'controlled parking zone' signs.
Could you also explain your comment that 'You have 28 days from the date of this Notice[Notice of Rejection] to do this[that is to pay £60]'. As I understand it, a penalty charge of £60 may be paid at any time up to 14 days having expired following service of a NOR on the owner pursuant to unsuccessful formal representations having been made.
Yours...
-
This should be hopeless for them because as we've established the bays must have parking signs unless there is a bay marking that shows a single restriction operating at all times.
This is nothing to do with whether the bay is in a CPZ or not.
So I don't think the bay meets the status of one that can be defined by a traffic order and hence subject to policing of its boundary.
See what Mr Anderson says.
Mr Anderson?
-
I would definitely carry on with this, Bexley Council are clearly just winging it hoping you'll give up and pay. If there is no sign for the bay, odds are the bay is not regulated and therefore not subject to any requirements at all.
-
This should be hopeless for them because as we've established the bays must have parking signs unless there is a bay marking that shows a single restriction operating at all times.
This is nothing to do with whether the bay is in a CPZ or not.
So I don't think the bay meets the status of one that can be defined by a traffic order and hence subject to policing of its boundary.
See what Mr Anderson says.
-
Hi all
Bromley Parking have come back and said that my reasons for the parking space are not valid and that a Parkign sign is not needed- here's the reply.
Are they correct? And if they are wrong, what do we do from here?
[attachimg=1][attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes the lat para can go.
You can add instead
Please note that in any case no requirement to park in the bounds of a parking bay is communicated to the motorist at this location. I believe this is contrary to legislation.
-
IMO, leave out anything to do with CPZ, it's a hare dressed as a red herring
-
Thanks for your help everyone. I'm not sure I have the ability to write in the very best tone but this is what I've drafted so far. Feel free to make corrections and additions, and thanks again!
Dear...
The car HK07AKO was parked on The Drive in one of the ‘parking bays’ late one night last week. Upon leaving the vehicle, I looked at the back wheel closest which was very much within the parking bay and a good distance from the yellow line. However, the whole of the ground was covered in leaves and it wasn’t possible to see, in the dark on a very badly lit road, that although the nearside was away from the yellow line, it was outside of the ‘parking bay’. This has never been a problem before, and with cars being much larger now than when the road was built, many cars along The Drive overhang the markings. For this reason, I find it very unfair that I received a ticket.
However, I have also ascertained that the Code 24 (Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space) is not enforceable. Code 24 refers to a ‘parking bay or space’ which is not what this area is designated as. In order for Code 24 to be enforceable, the space has to be sign posted with a ‘P’ sign for ‘Parking’ which is detailed in Schedule 5, Part 1 of Regulation 3, Direction 3 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
The area of The Drive is not a designated CPZ in Bromley and therefore does not have any restrictions on parking in the bays. The road markings referred to in the PCN are not enforceable as this bay, and indeed all the bays, have no signage for parking as described in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 under Schedule 7, Part 1. The area of The Drive has Controlled Parking but this signage (attached) only refers to the parking on single yellow lines at certain times, not the ‘parking bays’ marked out in the road.
--------------
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For the record this is what Bromley says about CPZs:
An area where a controlled parking zone (CPZ) applies includes a number of roads where waiting restrictions apply at a specified time. The times of restriction are indicated by signs placed on the entrances and exits to the zone. Individual signs will only be present within a CPZ where a restriction varies to the rest of the zone, i.e. disabled bays, loading bays, permit bays and yellow lines where the restriction times differ to those shown on the zone plates.
It's breathtaking in its arrogance.
A CPZ exists only by virtue of the entrance signs (providing markings comply)and these convey what the law, not b****y Bromley, prescribes. You cannot have the same sign meaning different things in different places!
There are options for councils:
Controlled” may be varied to “Meter”, “Disc”, “Ticket”, “Disc and Meter”, “Disc and Ticket” or “Pay and Display
-
Thanks stamfordman. I am getting the idea of how this bay isn't enforceable so will write up what I have gleaned from all of you!
BTW, I measured the bay and one end was 1.98m and the other end was 1.90m so it is within the limits. I noticed there was a large white van further up the road in one of the bays where the wheelbase was wider than the bay. It didn't have a ticket at that point but I can imagine the same attendant will try to issue one later on!
Fuzzy
-
I'm not sure Bromley counts this zone as a CPZ as it's not listed on its site, only ones in Bromley town centre. This is similar to Redbridge, which has some yellow line only CPZs (with no parking bays).
But here there are bays, which should have signs. For the record this is what Bromley says about CPZs:
An area where a controlled parking zone (CPZ) applies includes a number of roads where waiting restrictions apply at a specified time. The times of restriction are indicated by signs placed on the entrances and exits to the zone. Individual signs will only be present within a CPZ where a restriction varies to the rest of the zone, i.e. disabled bays, loading bays, permit bays and yellow lines where the restriction times differ to those shown on the zone plates.
If this bay is enforceable which it probably isn't there is this.
---------
Case reference 2240374029
Authority London Borough of Havering
Contravention date 13 Nov 2023
Contravention time 18:04:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 13 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This case comes before me following the making of a witness statement and I therefore consider the merits afresh.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay in Romford High Street on 13 November 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1804.
The Appellant states that there was no error with his parking and that he did park within the bay provided and explained the difficulties were caused by a lorry in front of him and a car behind him. He refers to front tyre being out of the bay.
The Council rely upon the evidence of its civil enforcement officer. Whilst these are dark, it can be seen that the entire front wheel of the Appellant's vehicle is within the adjacent loading only bay.
However there is no evidence before me any condition to park fully within the bay has been communicated to the motorist. The Council describe the bay as a parking bay and that the vehicle was straddling into a loading bay. However it is a requirement for delegated legislation that the obligation to park fully within the bay must be communicated.
As there is no evidence before me as to how this was done for the bay in question, the appeal must be allowed.
-
I do live nearby so I will go and measure today.
So I have an avenue to appeal as the PCN says I was parked outside of the parking place markings (schedule 5, Part 1), but the bay isn't specifically sign posted as being a parking place so the PCN is void?
The bay may well be too narrow as well, which I'll add to the appeal.
If I've got this right, I'll draft an appeal today and post here to make sure I haven't missed anything which given how complicated I find the legislation is very likely!
Thanks so much everyone,
Fuzzy
-
Or am I missing the point?
Yes.
Schedules 5 and 7?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
Waiting is waiting - with yellow lines(CPZ), without yellow lines(Restricted Parking Zone).
Your alleged contravention refers to you being outside parking place markings, nothing to do with waiting restrictions.
Do you live nearby, if so I suggest taking a tape measure to the bay because it does seem narrow: min. width 1.8m. Also, min. length 4.5m. IMO, the width of the road doesn't give rise to any reason for the council to depart from these measurements.
-
So as I understand it, as it wasn't parked on a yellow line, the fact that it was outside of the road markings isn't a contravention because the bay doesn't have it's own signage? Therefore, they can't give me a ticket?
Can someone verify?
Also, is this the legislation you're referring to H C Andersen? Surely the fact that there's signs at the start and end of the controlled zone (ie each end of the road) means that it's valid? Or am I missing the point?
“restricted parking zone”
an area—
(a)
into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by a sign which includes the symbol and legend at item 2 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5; and
(b)
in which none of the road markings at items 1 to 4 of the sign table in Part 4 of Schedule 7 has been placed
-Fuzzy
-
Does the controlled sign at the front of the zone not count?
NO. See the legal definition of a CPZ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
In short, as already posted, it has no effect in what purportedly is a parking space.
But it isn't because the only time when a sign may be dispensed with within a CPZ is when there are road markings which give effect to a 24/7 restriction which may be conveyed by such markings e.g. disabled, loading etc.
They're stuffed, but whether they want to continue to lie to get you to pay, who knows?
Training and professionalism in civil parking enforcement
Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs and clear and lawful signs and lines are in place, the success of civil parking enforcement will depend on the dedication and quality of the staff that deliver it.
It is essential to give staff at all levels the skills and training to do their jobs effectively if the service is to command public confidence and respect.
.....
Civil enforcement officers
CEOs are the public face of civil parking enforcement and the way they perform their functions is crucial to the success, and public perception, of an authority’s operation. It is recommended that all CEOs achieve minimum standards through recognised training courses.
...
CEOs’ traffic management duties will also include related activities such as the following:
inspecting parking equipment
checking and reporting defective traffic signs and road markings
Not my words, the Secretary of State for Transport in their Statutory Guidance to authorities to which they 'must have regard'!
-
@Fuzzed...
the PCN isn't for parking during controlled hours, it's for outside of bay... but if there is no sign for that bay then the bay may not be enforceable in which case it's the wrong contravention.
Does the controlled sign at the front of the zone not count? Otherwise, no there is nothing specifically on that bay.
-
@Fuzzed...
the PCN isn't for parking during controlled hours, it's for outside of bay... but if there is no sign for that bay then the bay may not be enforceable in which case it's the wrong contravention.
-
It's a controlled zone 8am - 6:30pm and the ticket was at 9:15(ish) today.
It was parked there on Sunday and no one thought it needed a ticket on Monday!
-
Looks rather petty to me - it does look like a narrow bay.
It is a controlled zone but there are no parking signs in the bays - we can look at the traffic order.
(https://i.ibb.co/x7hfqmS/br4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/GCxd3Hg/br3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/LNgr0Vx/br2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/rxDXP3x/br1.jpg)
-
Thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What is the car VRM/numberplate.
Post the PCN.
-
Hi all
This might be a long shot but wanted to run it by the experts here before I appeal or pay!
Bromley Council: BY23042228
The photos show that the wheels are within the back of the bay but one wheel is outside the road side boundary. Previous neighbours have had Smartcars which hang over the roadside boundary and have been told that it is fine, as it's within the bay's length.
It is only the one wheel that is sticking out here. How do massive cars which are wider than the bay width fare if this is the rule?
Many thanks all,
Fuzzy