Free Traffic Legal Advice

Not even me!

No, I'm not gonna interfere with the Legal arguments. Mr Mustard has kindly taken that off my hands.
I'm just posting here bare faced cheek of these people. But I guess you guys know that all too well already anyway.
Cheers

I took these yesterday (I moved after I took the photos). You can see there is space for 2 cars to get past me where I was parked.
People park at that part of the roundabout because no cars park opposite because someone's driveway is there, so there is ample space to get past even if one corner of my car is 50cm out.
You can see how difficult it is to get the car straight and tight, even that little car has the rear sticking out.
Lastly the CEO's own scooter is the only vehicle in his photo that is actually causing an obstruction because there are cars parked opposite him and the rear of his scooter is also more than 50cm away from the kerb!

Haha well, I certainly don't wanna be in a mugged club!
However, if my chance of success depends on a sympathetic adjudicator and whether the bay markers are still there ( which they are), that sounds like my odds are slim to none. Especially if the ticket, however unfair, was enforceable according to the rules, in which case I'm gonna end up getting mugged for £160 instead of £80. 

On the day in question, I parked as can be seen in the council's photos. At the time I parked I had just driven past a road marking LOADING ONLY and noticed the traffic sign which I looked at in detail once I'd stopped. As I was stationary outside the restricted loading hours, I left my car without any concern.

On receipt of the PCN, I couldn't understand the reason why it had been issued, there was a loading sign just to my rear and a resident's parking sign some way ahead. On viewing the council's photos, I am still none the wiser. These three photos comprise 2 close-ups and one head-on. Nowhere is there a photo of any traffic sign which suggests the CEO did not attach any weight to these signs and for all I know had another contravention in mind and simply pressed the wrong button. If the CEO did not see fit to photograph any traffic signs, or road markings for that matter, then clearly a mistake has been made because nothing in the evidence supports the alleged contravention grounds in the PCN which IMO must therefore be cancelled.


If they reject, then formal reps would give you the opportunity to attack whatever argument they use.

Thank you. I was on the right hand side of it, exactly where that Mercedes is parked in the street view.

Honestly, that is my mistake not seeing those marker lines. I can see them in my video aswell. I just didn't think to even check, since there were no other signs anywhere near where I was parked.
However, since I was clearly the wrong side of that line, that's exactly the reason they've given for rejecting the challenge. It's unreasonable yes, but I was in the resident's bay, albeit the signage was not at all clear. Had that one not been removed, I'd have seen it of course and just looked for somewhere else.

Well, they responded by email anyway. Just received this stock response. So the fact that the sign was missing and the nearest sign being further away than the loading sign, do you think I still have a realistic chance to fight this? Cheers.

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
The PCN was issued because you parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit
or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or
without payment of the parking charge.
Your challenge against this PCN has been rejected because you are not permitted to park in a resident bay without a
valid.
The signage was clear and should have been adhered to.
There is a high demand for resident parking space in the City of Westminster and to ensure that as much space as possible
is made available for the use of permit holders, any vehicle parked in a permit holder's bay that a CEO is unable to confirm
is covered by a valid permit on their handheld device, is a high priority for enforcement action. While this may sometimes
seem harsh, the City Council needs to take this course of action to keep resident bays clear for use by permit holders, who
pay an annual fee to park near their homes.
If you do not have a residents' permit, and you need to park during controlled hours, you may do so in Pay-to-Park bays.
These facilities are for general use and are intended to allow short term stays. If you need to park outside controlled hours,
you may do so free of charge on single yellow lines and in Pay-to-Park bays.
It remains the motorists' responsibility to ensure they have parked correctly and adhere to the restrictions in place or may
be liable to receive a PCN.
I am able to offer you a further 14 days, from the date of this letter, to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. You now have
two options.

(1, Pay it. 2, Formal representations)

Thanks for your help with this.

I'm more than willing to go to tribunal with it. Not just for the injustice of it, but also for the sake of my neighbours not having to worry about getting a ticket in future.

Ah ok so I guess it'll be in writing then. Thanks