Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - gt3

Pages: [1]
1
Not all that surprising, NoR has turned up. I will be taking it to the tribunal, what should I know before going for it? Tips/advice much appreciated.

https://imgur.com/a/ORvix09
So with no re-offer of the discount, it is now a total no-brainer to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Agree, will be doing that. Hopefully they'll take a better view of it than the council

2
Not all that surprising, NoR has turned up. I will be taking it to the tribunal, what should I know before going for it? Tips/advice much appreciated.

https://imgur.com/a/ORvix09

3
Amazing, thank you.

I noticed you didn't mention the bay marking, is this because the signage defence is strong enough alone or is it not a valid point?

5
The NtO has arrived and I plan to submitting a rep. This is what I've drafted up so far, could I please have some second opinions if it's ok or any changes I should make?


Dear Reading Borough Council,

The contravention did not occur as the signs and lines were wrong, and not in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.

Firstly, the boundary between the two bays with differing restrictions is incorrectly marked: the bays must have their own boundary and therefore a double perpendicular line from the kerb is required to define two separate bays as specified in TSRGD Schedule 7 Part 4 Item 6. In the pictures there is only a single faint perpendicular line on the boundary, and at the time of arrival a car was parked over it.

Furthermore the signage is inadequate in designating the separate parking restrictions. As defined in TSRGD Schedule 4 Part 2 Paragraph 10 Sub-Paragraph 1 in reference to Schedule 4 Part 4 Item 2, a blue ‘P’ symbol must be present on the sign for the ‘Permit holders only’ parking restriction, which was not the case at the boundary of the restrictions. At less than a car length away from my car, this was the closest signage to my parking location.

I therefore request the cancellation of the PCN.

Regards,

6
I had my a response to my email (sent 12th Jan) and my PCN cancelled today. Here's the body of the email I sent:

Quote
I understand this to be due to breaching the recently introduced LTN on Rivercourt Road. As someone who does not live locally and does not visit the area frequently I was not aware of the introduction of this and it was my first time driving on this road. On further research, I understand that drivers using the road earlier on in its implementation, only a few weeks before I visited, were issued a warning instead of a PCN to make them aware of the change, but as a visitor this would not have included myself.

I would like to make the following observations regarding the restriction and its corresponding signage:
- Approaching from the A4 westbound (meant to say from the west, oops), there was no previous signage regarding the LTN to inform of the upcoming restriction on Rivercourt Road. There is only one sign on the turn into the road notifying drivers of the restriction. Due to the nature of exiting a dual carriageway to a side road and therefore faster traffic approaching from behind as I turned in, my focus was on the road and turning safely as I entered Rivercourt Road. Due to the height and location of the sign I expect it was only briefly in view, and did not notice it on approach. This is why I believe it would be effective to have earlier warning on the A4 when there are not as many fast changing factors that can make it easy to not register the sign, particularly considering that it is one of multiple restriction signs on entry to the road, despite this particular sign having relevance to the most people.

- Had I noticed the sign indicating the restriction, I would not have been comfortable using the area described as a turning bay to exit back to the A4. I do not believe that the area is sufficiently large, given the turning circle of my car, to turn the car around safely and quickly. It would also present a safety hazard for any following cars that wished to turn into Rivercourt Road as I would be blocking the entry as I performed the manoeuvre leaving them stationary and exposed to the moving traffic on the A4 for longer than necessary. This therefore would only leave the option of reversing back on to the A4, however as seen in the video attached to the PCN, there is continuous, fast, traffic on the road and as a result would be unsafe, not to mention in breach of Rule 201 of the UK Highway Code.

Considering the above circumstances, I kindly request that the PCN be reviewed and the matter closed. I will ensure to use alternative routes when travelling in the area in future.

Their response essentially reiterated the nature of the restriction and that a picture there are indeed signs there. I did think the picture did a great job supporting my point that it's not easy to take in all the signs at once, to be fair.




7
No, you can submit an informal challenge at any time within the 28 days of the PCN payment period, indeed if you submit reps within the 14 day discount period, most councils re-offer the discount when rejecting those reps. These must be considered by the council. However, at Notice to Owner stage, things firm up, because under the law the owner is responsible for payment or representations and also for appealing to the adjudicators. Of course you don't have to do anything at all, and can just wait for the NtO, assuming you are the owner.

I submitted an informal challenge the day after which was rejected, received the letter yesterday. As far as I can see there is no option to make a rep/formal challenge without waiting for the NtO?. They haven't explicitly said it but on a past post here I saw they did re-offer the discount after the rep so there may be hope. To confirm, I am the owner of the car.

8
The boundary between the two bays is incorrectly marked. It should consist of double lines perpendicular to the kerb. This is because in TSRGD a bay is defined in Schedule 7 Part 4 Item 6 (Diagram 1028.4). So two bays with seperate restrictions, must have their own boundary, thus making a double perpendicular line mandatory.  Here, it is only a single line.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Just to confirm a few things - is TSRGD something that must be followed or simply guidance - i.e. if the signage and markings are improper is that enough to invalidate the PCN? And are my arguments regarding the signage valid? I suppose they would say that there was another, but the photos do show that it wasn't the closest to my car.

Would therefore plan to appeal with the following:

1. Boundary not marked, should be double line - TSRGD Schedule 7 Part 4 Item 6
2. Signage inadequate, missing symbol - TSRGD Schedule 4 Part 2 Paragraph 10 Sub-Paragraph 1; TSRGD Schedule 4 Part 4 Item 2

I was going to draft a representation but just realised that I can't submit a rep until a NtO turns up - I assume it's intentional that I can't do it during the reduced penalty period, forcing me to take a gamble.

In which case - while I understand no one has a crystal ball - does it seem like I have a good chance at a successful appeal?

9
Never seen that before - I'd say it needs a proper parking sign at the divider for permit holders. That little flap looks deficient and daft.

I've been reading Schedule 4 and 5 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 to try and see how the signage stacks up, and I think I might be able to argue something in the layout of that sign as well as the missing blue P. Not completely sure of my interpretation and understanding of it though so thought to get some other opinions first

10
Hi

I received a PCN last week for parking in a resident's only space, the road has 2 hour parking spaces and I was unaware that it changed midway along the set of spaces.

GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BntAzfpydWjAvG9m6

Pictures/PCN: https://imgur.com/a/EEEWTJz

I had submitted an informal challenge which was rejected, that's the second letter at the end of the album.

My defence was that it wasn't obvious that the rules changed at that point, less than a car's length away from my spot. The sign closest to my car stating it was permit only had the blue P and permit type painted over so quite frankly I just didn't notice it, and I'm used to signs in these scenarios having arrows along the bottom to clearly depict the difference in where they apply. The fact that in the PCN evidence they attached a photo of a different sign (pic 7) further away makes me think they knew this one isn't up to scratch, but I'm not clued up enough on the actual regulations to make a call on that.

The other point is that when I arrived (first picture in the album) there was a car parked over the (very faint) markings that showed the change in restrictions on the ground, making it less obvious that the other rules didn't apply to the whole row of spaces.

Do I have a leg to stand on here/is it worth making a formal challenge? TIA.

11
I received a PCN for this today, went through on 28/12/24 and notice dated 06/01/25. I also live nowhere near here and was my first time driving on this road.

Have sent an email to the address shared earlier, but considering that the reduced penalty charge ends on Friday because the letter took nearly a week to get here, and the slow response mentioned, my hopes aren't exactly high. Any ideas/advice appreciated.

Pages: [1]