Show Posts - kryba007

Hi, bumping this just to know whether the appeal draft is good to send. Thanks!

Quote from: Incandescent on 08 Jun, 2025 22:50Also Regulation 18 - adequate signageThanks, I have now updated and added this to the appeal

Quote from: John U.K. on 08 Jun, 2025 21:45Have a read of those before drafting your reps, then post the draft here for comment before submitting tp H&F, but do not miss deadlines.So far H&F have backed down in every case we know of before it reaches tribunal.Thanks for all this, John! Please take a look below:RE: PCN HZ92691860 (A4 - Rivercourt Road)Dear Hammersmith & Fulham Council,I would like to formally appeal this PCN as I believe it was unfairly issued and is legally unenforceable due to the following reasons:1) The absence of proper advance warning signs on the A4 before the Rivercourt Road junction means that adequate information about the restriction was not made available to road users. This is a fundamental legal requirement, and without it, no contravention can be established. H&F have also failed in their duty under LATOR (Local Authorities Traffic Orders Regulations) to place adequate signage, specifically clear and unequivocal signs on the A4 approach as required by Regulation 18. In the Oxfordshire case, advance warning signs were placed at 450, 180, and 20 yards before the restriction. No such advance signage exists on the A4 approaching Rivercourt Road, making this scheme legally deficient. Under the binding High Court judgment in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin), paragraph 65, Beatson J established that: "If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed".2) Under Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Hammersmith & Fulham cannot implement restrictions affecting Transport for London roads (including the A4) without giving proper notice to TfL and obtaining TfL's approval or allowing the statutory consultation period to expire. This is particularly concerning as H&F cannot place signs on the A4 (which is TfL's responsibility), suggesting they may have failed to properly consult on signage requirements under LATOR Regulation 6(1). I formally request evidence that H&F complied with Section 121B requirements. If these statutory procedures were not followed, the entire restriction scheme is unlawful and void.3) The scheme appears to violate H&F's statutory duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic." Specific safety concerns include: Give Way markings (diagram 1003A) positioned just 8 meters from the A4, requiring vehicles to stop within 8 meters of exiting a major road, while the braking distance from 30mph is 13.5 meters (excluding thinking distance). Large vehicles (school buses, lorries) cannot physically comply with this requirement, creating a dangerous situation where vehicles may need to obstruct the A4.4) Upon exiting the A4, drivers are immediately confronted with approximately 10 different signs including speed restrictions, parking restrictions, camera warnings, one-way signs, lorry restrictions, and road names. This excessive signage density makes it impossible to safely process all information while navigating the junction.5) As a regular user of this exit over many years, I was unaware of the recent restriction changes. The lack of advance warning to existing users, combined with inadequate signage, created an unavoidable contravention situation.6) Once committed to the exit from the A4, reversing back onto the main carriageway would violate Highway Code Rules 200 and 201, making it both illegal and extremely dangerous. The restriction creates a dangerous situation as the kerbs and road design provide no safe means for a motorist to turn around and rejoin the A4 upon discovering the restriction.Given these substantial legal deficiencies, I respectfully request immediate cancellation of this PCN as the restriction scheme appears to be legally flawed, unsafe, and unenforceable in its current form.I look forward to your prompt response confirming cancellation of this charge.Yours faithfully,Please let me know if this is good to launch. Appreciate all your time and effort! Thanks

Quote from: Incandescent on 08 Jun, 2025 19:47QuoteDoes the registered keeper have any chance at an appeal considering the above?Join the queue of successful appellants ! H & F have made an enormous Pig's Ear of this restriction, creating danger where there was none present before, and providing no safe way of returning to the A4. The signage on approach (the responsibility of Transport for London), is totally inadequate, and the actual restriction signs are too close to the A4. H & F seem to recognise their own balls-up, and have cancelled the PCNs of all who have come on this forum, but of course we know nothing about the other 90% who will have just coughed-up as soon as the PCN arrived in the post.To make this a safe restriction, H&F should have rebuilt the kerbs at the entrance to allow a motorist to re-join the A4, and to place the restriction signs much further into Rivercourt Road so that a motorist, seeing them, would be able to turn round and rejoin the A4. It is a totally monstrous trap as it stands. H&F have totally failed in their duty under LATOR to place adequate signage of the restriction. This means clear and unequivocal signs on the A4. At the moment there is a temporary sign. (GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date at the moment so one cannot see what is there, but it is nonsence.I suspect that H&F failed to consult with TfL on the signage requirements, (LATOR Regulation 6 (1) 1 because H&F cannot place signs on the A4, as it is a TfL responsibility. This restriction is a classic case of council stupidity when making traffic arrangements.Great news! Thank you very much! Therefore I'm assuming I follow the appeal process stated on the ticket summarising the above, as well as quoting the signeage requirements (LATOR Regulation 6 (1) 1?

Dear all, I hope you are doing well. Here is the ticketed correspondence. The registered keeper drove into 'Rivercourt Road' which seems to be a new phobitied area unless you have a permit. GSV link here. A couple of points: - This seems to be a very recent addition of prohibitions (pictures available here). The registered driver drove down that road a week prior. No cameras / signage was present. This has been a common route for the registered keeper for the past ~twenty years. - The signeage isn't outright obvious, especially when travelling 40mph down the A4. Took me a small moment to process everything from the pictures - uncertain how they expect a motorist on a busy A4 to be able to process all of the info without prior forewarning. - The registered keeper actually stopped before the signeage, but unfortunately due to the big nature of the car - reversing onto the A4 is probably an extremely silly and unsafe idea. This simple manouver can put quite a few motorists at risk. - Not sure how relevant this is, but Rivercourt road is also a one way road. Therefore a U-turn isn't possible as there's a 'no-entry' sign just before the road widens (where once could safely make a U-turn). Take a look here.  - The signage seems to be quite sudden. There is no forewarning whatsoever and the only signage is hidden behind roadside trees right up until the turning. The registered keeper went back to the area to double check this. See picture below:Does the registered keeper have any chance at an appeal considering the above? Thank you all for your time. I really respect and appreciate your efforts.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 14 May, 2025 13:50Just stick to the facts, don't discuss or debate. *- what can the addressee provide by way of evidence in support of them residing at this address? And what does this mean: They have also since moved country entirely, so correspondence would most likely need to be sent abroad (EU)And whether or not they live there, is this address still registered with DVLA for a car of which the addressee is the keeper?Thank you for your time. I'm assuming the registered keeper will also tell them that they have no intention of paying the fine, or is it a case of literally just informing them about the change of address without any extra information? The registered keeper can provide a new tenancy agreement as well as any other information they may require?And apologies about the wording. They will need to send correspondence abroad to get in touch with the registered keeper. I believe the address should no longer be registered with DVLA. The car was sold to a new keeper before moving abroad. Thank you

Hi, here are the first two pages, though if you need me to send through complete scans of everything, I can do that too when i get back. Yes the keeper was originally registered at his parent's adress and is now visiting them from abroad. These letters were sent to this adress. Thanks!

Hi all, The registered keeper (and most likely driver during contravention) has received two letters of claim from BWLegal. The driver has tried checking what exactly the contravention was for on the PCM website, unfortunately however, it seems the details / way to check no longer exists. The VRN is RE07 BXFPCM Claim numbers: U0050157543 & U0050176329Litigation starts on the 22nd of May for the first claim and 17th of May for the second claim. Just wondering if I should follow this exact advice on the thread found here (first comment).The driver has ignored all correspondence up until now. They have also since moved country entirely, so correspondence would most likely need to be sent abroad (EU). The driver believes the PCN’s are for stopping on this road here GSV, but cannot be 100% certain due to not being able to cross verify with PCM. Back when the PCN would have been issued, there were no double yellows, and private car park signage wasn’t displayed clearly at that location.Any advice, including: ‘just follow the forum thread you’ve listed’ would be greatly appreciated.Thank you and have a nice day

Hello all. Just updating to say that unfortunately my father lost the case and will need to pay I will update you with the actual reasonings when I receive them from my parents - though they said something along the lines that 'parking in the assigned bays was a requirement that wasn't adhered to'... I suppose it can be argued that the tiles on the car park flooring where my father parked could be mistaken for a bay space. Though take this with a pinch of salt.. I'll wait until I receive the actual wording as my parents memory isn't the best. Thank you all for your support thus far... I know it's not easy and quite time intensive!

Perfect thanks! Submitted everything as per instructions, will be back to let you know of the outcome!

Wow this is phenomenal! Thank you so much!Just a small discrepancy that I've noticed, The Trial header on page 9 says 'In the County Court at Guildford' yet the documents state that the trial will take place at 'the County Court at Staines'. Should I adjust the witness statement + email accordingly, or leave the location + country court as Guildford?I personally will be out of the country then, but I will run everything past my mother to make sure she understands from top to bottom. I think she will act as the lay representative on my fathers behalf.  On a side note... I'm shocked by the amount of discrepancies from the claimants side! Keeping my fingers crossed, and will be back to update! Your work is incredible

Quote from: b789 on 24 Apr, 2025 14:48You have very little time left to try and salvage this. I will be on and off the forum later and will endeavour to assist you but I do need answers to my questions first.Time is of the essence.Thank you. As far as my father is aware, he never submitted a Witness Statement or anything of the sort. Tenancy agreement wise, he's currently looking for it, though might end up needing to request it. I will update you as soon as there's any updates. What would be the best course of action should we not receive the tenancy agreement in time?

Thanks for your reply!Quote from: b789 on 24 Apr, 2025 13:56What has be submitted as the defendants Witness Statement? Why have you redacted the Particulars of Claim (PoC)?I will get back to you about the Witness Statement when I get my hands on it. Didn't realise I redacted important parts of POC, here is an updated version. I've only redacted the address and VRN, though if they are necessary, I'm happy to supply those as well. Quote from: b789 on 24 Apr, 2025 13:56It is a real pity that you had not come here before any response to the claim was made. The defence is incredibly weak.Agreed. I only found out about it recently unfortunately. Quote from: b789 on 24 Apr, 2025 13:56What does your father's lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say is equally important. For example, is there anything in the lease about requiring a permit to be displayed in a vehicle? Is there any mention of a third party being able to issue invoices for parking?I will check and get back to you about this ASAP

Hello everyone,I'm stepping in to help my parents out as they have a court case upcoming (30/04/25) for a private parking ticket from PPM and wondered whether there's any hope?I have uploaded the trial bundle and pictures of the bay for reference. My dad has a permit (I believe with PPM) to park in a car park right outside our house. He received a ticket for parking in a space that had no clear signage or markings indicating that he couldn't park there. He was not obstructing or impeding anyone or anything. GSV View.My dad suffers from rheumatoid arthritis which causes him considerable pain when walking even moderate distances. He's currently applying for a disabled badge to help with this situation. Finding suitable parking has become particularly challenging due to the size of his vehicle and the limited availability in our area. When he can't secure a spot in our assigned car park, he's forced to park further away and make painful walks to and from his car (including having to move it during restricted hours).It appears he's fallen victim to poorly managed space allocation. These bays belong to the row of houses and the block of flats, so there should always be enough space for everyone. Unfortunately, it seems too many permits have been issued, making the parking oversubscribed. On a side note, In the pictures, you can see a white van without a permit that had been broken down and unmovable - it occupied a parking space for over six months with no action taken.Interestingly, PPM has used photos from 2018 in their trial bundle even though the alleged contravention occurred on 15/08/2023. This seems misleading as it could be used to show how "empty" the car park supposedly was, with plenty of spaces to choose from, which wasn't the case.As a side note, residents occasionally leave bins for collection where my dad parked, though this typically only happens on collection days. At the time of this incident, collections had been cancelled due to a holiday period.Could anyone advise if we stand a chance against PPM? This case feels like a grey area, but the entire parking situation with PPM seems like it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.Please let me know if you need any additional information. I've redacted some private details from the uploaded trial bundle, but I can provide more information if needed.Thank you kindly, Charlie

Thank you very much to all! I've decided to pay the charge, as my family will still be living in this house even after I go abroad - so would want to avoid any problems for them. Otherwise I would have taken this to the tribunals. Thank you all for the help and support - hopefully this thread can help someone in the future