Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, Sorry I missed these replies, I am new here and have not quite got to grips with the forum just yet. I appreciate your help and in all fairness, I am feeling much more happy to challenge them further about this. I think I was mislead and so would like to take it further. Do you know roughly how long the whole process will be including the decisions from the tribunal.

Thanks again everyone and sorry for the misuse of the forum.

Hi everyone, this is a repost as I previously uploaded the images and they had not worked. I am seeking advice on whether to proceed to Formal Representations or pay the £80 discount following a rejected informal challenge. I was caught in Berkeley Square by what appears to be a cone trap suspension. I have already appealed and been rejected so I am seeking advice on what to do next.

Case Details:
PCN Number: WE66227915
Contravention: 21u (Parked in a suspended bay)
Location: Berkeley Square
Sighted: 22:17 / Issued: 22:17


The Grounds for Appeal:

Legitimate Expectation / Misleading Demarcation: The suspension area was physically cordoned off with traffic cones, but the specific bay I parked in was left entirely open and accessible. The cones clearly started immediately after my vehicle. I argued that this created a visual safe zone that a reasonable motorist would rely on, especially as the physical demarcation contradicted the distant signage.

Ambiguous Asset Identification: I do not know if this can be a defense but the notice refers to Lamp Column 19, but the column itself is labeled with a vertical 1 over a 9. At night, this was not intuitively identifiable as 19 and is arguably non-standard labeling. (Note: I did not mention this specific point in the informal challenge).


The Rejection:
Westminster has rejected the challenge. Crucially, they admitted to the absence of cones in their letter (Whilst I appreciate you believed parking was permitted due to no cones being present...) but claimed the sign is the final authority (the sign is also not quite near the parking of my car which you can see in the photos). They failed to address the point regarding observation time or the specific location of the vehicle relative to the coned-off zone.

Evidence Links:
https://imgpile.com/p/pZe2kIS

I feel the Council has failed in its Duty to Consider by providing a boilerplate response to the cone issue. Does the Legitimate Expectation argument hold weight at Tribunal, or should I take the 50% hit now?

What is the vehicle VRM.

here is the images from my end https://imgpile.com/p/pZe2kIS

Here are council pics bar a couple of close-ups of windscreen.

No suspension sign or anything putting you in a suspended bay.

I would be inclined to go on with this - they need to satisfy an adjudicator and this won't do it in my view.








I also find it unusual to cone of some of the suspended bays, and have the open bays furthest away from the sign.

Hi everyone, seeking advice on whether to proceed to Formal Representations or pay the £80 discount following a rejected informal challenge. I was caught in Berkeley Square by what appears to be a cone trap suspension. I have already appealed and been rejected so I am seeking advice on what to do next.

Case Details:
PCN Number: WE66227915
Contravention: 21u (Parked in a suspended bay)
Location: Berkeley Square
Sighted: 22:17 / Issued: 22:17


The Grounds for Appeal:

Legitimate Expectation / Misleading Demarcation: The suspension area was physically cordoned off with traffic cones, but the specific bay I parked in was left entirely open and accessible. The cones clearly started immediately after my vehicle. I argued that this created a visual safe zone that a reasonable motorist would rely on, especially as the physical demarcation contradicted the distant signage.

Ambiguous Asset Identification: I do not know if this can be a defense but the notice refers to Lamp Column 19, but the column itself is labeled with a vertical 1 over a 9. At night, this was not intuitively identifiable as 19 and is arguably non-standard labeling. (Note: I did not mention this specific point in the informal challenge).


The Rejection:
Westminster has rejected the challenge. Crucially, they admitted to the absence of cones in their letter (Whilst I appreciate you believed parking was permitted due to no cones being present...) but claimed the sign is the final authority (the sign is also not quite near the parking of my car which you can see in the photos). They failed to address the point regarding observation time or the specific location of the vehicle relative to the coned-off zone.

Evidence Links:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nMN9sri4szlc39EhXVb2aTr3Ohy55LHM?usp=drive_link

https://imgpile.com/p/pZe2kIS

I feel the Council has failed in its Duty to Consider by providing a boilerplate response to the cone issue. Does the Legitimate Expectation argument hold weight at Tribunal, or should I take the 50% hit now?