Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Contravention 21 - Haringey - bay suspended when already parked in it
« on: March 16, 2026, 10:11:55 pm »
Hi stamfordman, thanks for your reply. Yes, you may well be right - the honest reason I did not "walk to my car and check it" during this period however is that I can literally see the car where it was parked from my front room, so then consequently didn't feel the need to walk over the main road and up the side street to said car to check on it.
What I could *not* see from my window however, was the yellow sign, which was several car-lengths further up the road... and so began the problem. If there was a yellow sign right next to my car however, I'm pretty certain I would've seen it, but as it was further up the road, I couldn't see it from the flat.
To be honest if I had gone over and walked up and down that street, I would've seen the signs - but the point is that I could a) see the car from my flat so didn't feel a need to check on it for "safety of the vehicle or anything b) honestly just didn't know that I needed to check for bay suspensions in the first place - so the two combined meant that I didn't return to the vehicle.
I see the most likely legal ground for appeal here will be on the visibility of signage, but I'm so frustrated by this whole proceeding. How can the council reasonably expect people to get a "car sitter" (like a cat sitter...) when they for example go on holiday - it literally says on their website that you should do this. It's one thing getting someone to check on your car, but asking them to DRIVE IT if a bay suspension occurs in your absence!?
And re the logbook - yes the v5c is up to date, the car is registered at this address and I am its owner.
What I could *not* see from my window however, was the yellow sign, which was several car-lengths further up the road... and so began the problem. If there was a yellow sign right next to my car however, I'm pretty certain I would've seen it, but as it was further up the road, I couldn't see it from the flat.
To be honest if I had gone over and walked up and down that street, I would've seen the signs - but the point is that I could a) see the car from my flat so didn't feel a need to check on it for "safety of the vehicle or anything b) honestly just didn't know that I needed to check for bay suspensions in the first place - so the two combined meant that I didn't return to the vehicle.
I see the most likely legal ground for appeal here will be on the visibility of signage, but I'm so frustrated by this whole proceeding. How can the council reasonably expect people to get a "car sitter" (like a cat sitter...) when they for example go on holiday - it literally says on their website that you should do this. It's one thing getting someone to check on your car, but asking them to DRIVE IT if a bay suspension occurs in your absence!?
And re the logbook - yes the v5c is up to date, the car is registered at this address and I am its owner.