Show Posts - m00nkeh

Thanks for the replies, is there really no other option at this point? If I were to not pay, what would be the next steps and likely timescale? It seems pretty messed up that I have no further right to defend myself against this unless the council made one of the very short list of very specific procedural errors listed on the TE9 form. When I saw the words 'Witness Statement' I assumed I would get the chance to make a statement as one would in any court case. Informing me that the case is on hold and then proceeding with it seems quite egregious, but as it happened after the tribunal's (totally incorrect!) decision it seems I can't do anything about it. I am learning now that this whole process, and the real value of this forum, is that every step seems more concerned with whether the council have followed correct procedure, rather than whether I actually did anything wrong in the first place!

In July 2024 I was unfortunate enough to find myself in Northampton after a very long day driving several hundred miles. I ended up at a rather confusing junction with several road closures trying to work out which way I could legally exit, and noticed that one of the roads had a No Motor Vehicles sign with the following text: "Except for buses, taxis, licensed private hire and loading 6 pm - 10 am". I interpreted this to mean that the No Motor Vehicles restriction was only in place between the stated hours (the formatting of the sign meant that the times were on their own line at the bottom), and as it was not yet 6pm, that I could legally drive on this street.Google StreetviewAfter this I went on holiday (to somewhere considerably nicer than Northampton), and on my return the attached PCN was awaiting me. I assumed the whole thing was a mistake on the part of the council and would easily be overturned - I am a law abiding driver and on the rare occasion I have received a PCN I have always successfully appealed, so I didn't think I would need any help in this case and submitted the following appeal online on August 8th:QuoteThe signs at the junction between Drapery and Mercers Row clearly state that the restriction only applies between 6pm and 10am. As the alleged contravention occurred at 17:19, this was not within the hours that the restriction applies.On August 30th I received the 10 page(!) rejection attached below, which I didn't feel really addressed the substance of my appeal and instead explains that I should instead have taken a diversion that goes the wrong way down a one way street. I was really quite surprised that the appeal was rejected, as it had seemed such a simple case of the council making a mistake, but I now realised that the intended interpretation of the sign differed from the way I had interpreted it. As I was not aware of this when I made my original appeal, I contacted them again with the following:QuoteI was very disappointed to receive your notice of rejection of my appeal against PCN NP11367954. I intend to appeal to the independent adjudicator, and I am confident that they will decide in my favour, however I wanted to get in touch first in the hope that you might be willing to do the reasonable thing and cancel the PCN to avoid more hassle for everybody.The reason for my initial appeal was that I interpreted the signage at the Southern end of Drapery to indicate that the No Motor Vehicles restriction (with an exemption for buses, taxis, licensed private hire and loading) is only in force between the hours of 6pm and 10am. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the signage, and is compliant with the highway code. I thought the PCN to be a simple error, and that as my car was recorded entering Drapery at 5:19pm, it would be cancelled as the restriction was not in effect for another 41 minutes.From your rejection letter, I now realise that the intended meaning of the signage is that the exemption, rather than the restriction, only applies during the stated hours. The problem is that the signage is ambiguous, and its intended meaning is not clear, even to someone highly familiar with the highway code. I believe it may also be the case that the signage does not conform to the highway code.In the Department for Transport Guidance on Regulatory Signs (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/regulatory-signs), in all examples given of signs that indicate a timed prohibition, the stated times refer to when the prohibition is in effect. The examples given are captioned as "Alternative plates used with the ‘no vehicles’ sign, indicating times when vehicles are prohibited, except for access." and "A time plate used with a ‘no right turn’ or ‘no left turn’ sign indicates a part-time prohibition."In the Department for Transport Guidance on Bus and Cycle signs and Road Markings (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/bus-and-cycle-signs-and-road-markings), an example is given of a timed bus lane, with the caption "With-flow bus and pedal cycle lane sign showing hours of operation. Where no times are shown, the bus lane operates at all times." Again, this clearly indicates that when times are stated on bus lane signage, the times refer to the hours during which the bus lane is in effect.I have also included an image of a bus gate in my home town of Durham, with signage indicating the hours for which the bus gate is in effect. This example also uses standard blue bus lane signage, with "Bus Gate" clearly marked on the road surface: two things Drapery lacks that could help to reduce ambiguity. The second image is of a No Motor Vehicles sign in London, with times stated underneath referring to when the restriction is in effect.I am confident that the ambiguity of the signage at Drapery - specifically as to whether the hours stated on the sign refer to the times when the restriction is in effect, as I interpreted, or when the exemption applies, as it was presumably intended - will lead the independent adjudicator to decide in my favour. However, I wanted to first give you the opportunity to reconsider your decision to avoid the unnecessary hassle of the adjudication process.I wish this had been my first appeal, as their response (attached below) basically said "you've had your one appeal, anything else you send us will be met with a brick wall". I registered an appeal with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal on September 27th, basically saying the same as above, and on October 8th that appeal was rejected with the attached decision. After this, I contacted West Northamptonshire Council a few more times through the appeals website in the futile hope that I might get through to a human being capable of exercising a bit of common sense. I don't think there's any point in sharing all this correspondence unless someone specifically wants to see it, but I think it may be relevant that each time I sent a message, I received the following reply:QuoteDear XXX,This is an email from the West Northamptonshire Council's Parking Services TeamThank you very much for your e-mail. This is now being processed and the case has been placed ON HOLD (including the discount payment amount) pending a decision which will be emailed to you in due course.Penalty Charge Notice : NP11367954This message has been generated automatically. Please do not reply.This email would seem to indicate that the case is on hold and cannot proceed until a response is received. I received one such email after sending a message on October 8th, however on November 8th, despite having received no response, a Charge Certificate (attached below) was issued. I'm sure they have no obligation to put the case on hold for every piece of correspondence they receive, but if their system sends an automated message telling me that it is on hold when it isn't, surely that's a pretty serious error on their part?Finally this week, I received the attached Order of Recovery. The last correspondence I received before this was the message above stating the case was on hold on December 13th, so again it seems the case has proceeded while they informed me it was on hold.I'm not going to pay it, as I don't believe petty bureaucrats should have the power to bully normally law abiding motorists for misinterpreting their overly complex signage. What can I do?PCNRejection of RepresentationsResponse to emailTribunal DecisionCharge CertificateOrder of Recovery