Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Coldhands on May 12, 2025, 01:58:22 pm
-
Greenwich has been giving up on a lot of appeals recently - short-staffed probably. It's a good gamble to take them to the tribunal at present.
Or they're making so much money from the 95% of PCN recipients who just cough-up, they've decided preparing evidence packs is too much of a fag, plus they must pay the adjudication fee win or lose.
-
Greenwich has been giving up on a lot of appeals recently - short-staffed probably. It's a good gamble to take them to the tribunal at present.
-
For future reference, my appeals were allowed by the adjudicator as the council didn't submit any evidence. Not sure if this means the council believed they were in the wrong or simply that they were short staffed or incompetent.
-
Formal reps submitted. Fingers crossed!
-
Looking at the adjudication, I think you could reference it, and include the sentences that state the CPZ is too large for merely having entry signs and none inside the zone. It is 2016, so it appears that Greenwich have, as is usual for London councils of having totaly ignored the decision. They can get away with this, because most people, (>95%) just cough-up when they get a PCN.
-
Is it worth also making reference within the representations to the case that won at adjudication on the same grounds?
Please tell us the Case Number so we can see it first.
Case number 2160225793
Attached screenshot in a post above
-
Is it worth also making reference within the representations to the case that won at adjudication on the same grounds?
Please tell us the Case Number so we can see it first.
-
Is it worth also making reference within the representations to the case that won at adjudication on the same grounds?
-
Rather long-winded but the best you can do really. You need to send it for each PCN.
If they reject they will probably offer you the discounts.
-
I wonder if anyone would kindly let me know their thoughts on the below formal representations I intend to submit tomorrow? Thanks!
Re.
PCN GR14257601 – 5th February
and PCN GR14259662 - 5th March
Vehicle reg. XXXXX
To whom it may concern,
I do not deem that the alleged contravention occurred, thus this PCN 14257601 issued on 5th Feb is not valid. Similarly, the alleged contravention in relation to PCN 14259662 issued on 5th Mar did not occur. The basis for these statements is the same for both PCNs and I issue these formal representations in relation to both PCNs.
There is no signage on Norman Road to indicate that parking at the location in question is subject to any restrictions. For this reason, I parked my car at this location, being a single yellow line marked section of Norman Road. After receiving this PCN, I investigated further by walking around the surrounding area, and found the following:
1. There is signage elsewhere on Norman Road accompanying marked parking bays, indicating specific parking restrictions for those locations.
2. There is also signage on surrounding streets indicating parking is subject to specific restrictions. This signage accompanies single yellow lines as well as marked parking bays. Thus one would deduce parking restrictions in force for yellow lines and parking bays on those streets.
a. For instance, on the adjacent Tarves Way, signage accompanies marked parking bays to indicate parking for electric vehicles only, in one instance, car club cars only, in another instance, and separate signage accompanies a yellow line to indicate parking for business permit parking only between specific hours (09:00 to 10:00).
b. Another example is the adjacent Haddo Street, where signage accompanying the single yellow line indicates parking for resident and business permit holders only between specific hours (Mon-Sat 09:00 to 17:00 and Sun 09:00 to 18:00)
3. Given the absence of such signage accompanying the single yellow line on Norman Road, one would deduce there are no parking restrictions in force for the single yellow line on Norman Road.
Based on this, I judged that no contravention occurred and the PCN was issued in error.
I received a further PCN,14259662, issued on 5th Mar, after parking again a few metres along the street from the location where I parked when the first PCN was issued.
For the same reasons as above, I judge that no contravention occurred and this PCN was also issued in error. Upon further research, I discovered on the website of Greenwich council that Norman Road is considered to be part of the ‘Greenwich town centre’ controlled parking zone. A big surprise to me, as I do not recall passing any signage to indicate this, and there is no mention of the presence of a CPZ in either the PCN, the evidence accompanying the PCN online, or the notice to owner.
In addition, most would not consider Norman Road to be part of Greenwich town centre. The area of Greenwich commonly referred to as the town centre is typically located around the Greenwich Market and the area surrounding the Royal Observatory and Greenwich Park.
I went back to the location where I would have passed the controlled parking zone entry signs – this would have been on the A206, close to the junction with King William Walk, as I was coming in from the Blackwall Tunnel. CPZ entry signs are present, however I do not believe any reasonable motorist would have expected that the restrictions on the sign would be in force all the way over at Norman Road (halfway to Deptford!).
Upon further research and in line with the above, I found that the council has failed to have proper regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State on Parking Policy and Enforcement which very clearly expresses the view that a motorist cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a CPZ that covers an area of more than a dozen streets.
The general rule is that there is no requirement to have signs in individual streets where the location is part of a CPZ. Where there is a yellow line with no sign in a controlled zone, it does mean that CPZ restricted hours apply, if the yellow line is situated within a valid and compliant CPZ. However, the Secretary of State does recommend that conventional time plates accompany yellow lines in larger CPZs.
The Greenwich CPZ has some 67 streets. Norman Road itself is a long road. A motorist like myself entering the CPZ past the signs on the A206 from the direction of the Blackwall Tunnel would see no further signs driving onwards to the parking location in question. That is by no means adequate signage over such a large area.
For this reason the alleged contraventions, in the cases pertaining to both PCNs, did not occur.
Regards,
-
I believe the signage aspect should win this for me,
Unfortunately, I think a win is very unlikely, although I'm always prepared to be surprised ! You parked on a reasonably clear single yellow line, didn't check what the restrictions are, and when you received a PCN, carried on parking there.
As Stamfordman says, the location is in a CPZ, where the entry signs at the zone boundaries give the restrictions on the single yellow lines. The CPZ is Greenwich Town Centre (G) with controlled hours Mon-Sat 9am to 5 pm
https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/repo/pages/cpz/iframe.html
This map is out-of-date, because the entry signs on GSV show a Sunday restriction too
Here is one of the entry signs on the A200 (Creeek Road) as per GSV October 2024: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ngnE76ELHzH2eUpu5
The next turn to the right in the GSV view is Norman Road.
and here is the sign on the A206 at the other end of Norman Road: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/T1z5SzYwU5Prm1jf6
So what could win ?
Well, the zone is very large and could be challenged on its sheer size, the guidance originally said CPZs should only cover around 8-10 streets, but that was a long time ago. However, one could still make the point. However, apart from guidance on size, such a large zone should really have repeater signs, and I see none on the GSV views.
-
I would have passed the attached signposts coming into Greenwich on the A206, although to be honest I have never actually noticed them while driving through.
The lines are not in good shape but I guess would be considered sufficiently noticeable.
The related case I mentioned is also attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Norman Road I think is in a large controlled parking zone so the questions here are:
Did you pass CPZ entry signs on your route?
Are the single yellow lines you parked on substantially compliant?
The lines do look clear. The size of the zone could be an issue
(https://i.ibb.co/YT00sJM7/gr2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/N2JKXYn1/gr1.jpg)
-
This thread is for 2 PCNs received on separate dates. I've parked in this location countless times over the last 10 months or so (work-related visits). Admittedly after the first PCN I should have taken the hint and stopped parking there! You can be the judge of how wise my decision not to do so was. Typically this location is not well-covered by parking wardens as there is a lot of construction traffic during the day due to an adjacent building site. Luckily I no longer have need to park in Greenwich on a regular basis.
Parking location is metres apart between each occasion - around this spot - https://maps.app.goo.gl/qx922KfxXB3vvWmi6 - where you see the C&M sweeper vehicle parked on street view.
PCN 14257601 - 5th February - https://imgur.com/a/Ys2BpGh
PCN 14259662 - 5th March - https://imgur.com/a/cAxLKMW
I submitted informal reps for both of these on 5th March - stating that I did not believe a contravention had occurred as I did not deem that there was sufficient signage and road marking to constitute a valid parking restriction at the location. There were no signs on the street to indicate a parking restriction. The only signs that exist are further along the street and these appear to be specifically for certain car club specific permit parking bays (you will see these on google street view, if you go along the road away from Tarves Way). Furthermore I noted that the yellow line on the road is faded in places and is also covered in dust likely originating from the adjacent building site (although this is only the case for the first occasion, which you will see in the photos).
I have lost the council's response to these reps (which was an identical response for both PCNs, came towards the end of March) but they said that a) signage on the road is not needed, given there is signage at the start of the restricted street and b) it does not matter how clear the single yellow line is, it is a motorist's responsibility to notice it.
The NtOs for both came through on 21st April.
I believe the signage aspect should win this for me, I think my reference to the clarity of single yellow lines was a bit superfluous. - I saw a similar case on the same street at the adjudicator, where the motorist made reference to govt guidance stating that for restricted parking zones covering more than a dozen streets (as the Greenwich town center CPZ is), internal time plates/conventional signage should be used. Looks like this is clause E5 of statutory guidance on civil parking enforcement issued in March 2008 from what I can see online.
Can I rely on this to win these appeals?
Any advice appreciated. Thank you very much!