Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I have a feeling that I'm in the wrong here - but thought I'd post anyway. I parked in a designated disabled person's parking bay this Sunday evening at Lodge Place, Sutton, after 6.30 pm (there were about 8 bays and almost all were empty).

The signage read:

Disabled badge holders only
(separator)
8 am - 6.30 pm, 3 hours, No return within 2 hours
(separator)
At other times No limit

I took the separator to mean that after 6.30 pm that there was no limitation on any vehicle to park in this bay, which I thought was reinforced by the fact that there was a signage separator above it.

I've attached the PCN notice received. Do I have any case here, or should I pay the £70 (expensive mistake)?

As a grumble, this part of Sutton is a massive ring road, so you have to travel the entirety of if if you think you've missed a legitimate space - making it very hard to find parking on a Sunday evening (where you'd think roads after 6.30 pm on a Sunday are mostly free)

Many thanks and kind regards,

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hello,

Having read several posts on this site, I'm another recipient of a PCN from Harrow Council (PCN HR74437020 (a 33E), Reg GJ03ZYY, contravention on 7/1/24 at 0049, Camrose Avenue Bus Gate). I've requested the CCTV footage online, been told to wait up to 24 hours for it.

PCN photos here:



I have made a representation citing poorly lit signage before finding this forum and some of the other reasons, and have received a notice of rejection. I currently have 14 days from 21/2/24 to pay the reduced £65.

Notice of Rejection here:


I'm aware of the following strong arguments so far:

1. "I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim. I refer to Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington Case No 2110212199 which corroborates this argument."

2. "The Authority has not proved the signage at this location. The CCTV footage the back of two circular sign plates can be seen between the two routes. There is no evidence in relation to what these signs are. The photographs on the PCN do not show the signage of which only the back can be seen."

3. Otherwise its reasonable excuses (as posted by another user) as follows:

a) Adequacy of Signage: The signage indicating the bus gate on Camrose Avenue is inadequate, particularly during nighttime conditions when visibility is reduced. The lack of sufficient illumination and clarity on the signage did not provide the necessary alert to the approaching bus gate restriction. This inadequacy is heightened by the fact that the only advanced warning signs visible were related to a width restriction, not a bus gate.

b) Late Disclosure of Restriction: The positioning and timing of the bus gate signage did not afford adequate time to safely maneuver out of the bus gate lane. Due to the flow of traffic and for the safety of all road users, I was compelled to proceed through the bus gate to avoid a potential traffic incident. This decision was made in the interest of safety, given the immediate traffic conditions and the sudden appearance of the restriction.

c) Faded Road Markings: The road markings indicating the bus gate were noticeably faded and not observable during the night. The bus gate's red road surface did not offer a sufficient approach distance to safely realign the vehicle, contributing to the confusion and the eventual contravention.

d) Inconsistent Road Treatments: The absence of standard double yellow, red lines, solid white line, which are typically consistent with bus gates and bus lines, contributed to the confusion. Additionally, the bus gate's unconventional placement compared to standard practices in London further misled me as a driver.

e) Lack of Pre-warning Signs: The presence of a pre-warning sign before the crossroad or near the central island would have provided crucial additional time to adjust vehicle positioning. The sudden appearance of the bus gate restriction, without adequate pre-warning, significantly increased the risk of a traffic incident.

Would forum members suggest I take this to appeal? If so, are you able to assist or provide any wording that might help me with making a formal appeal?

Many thanks for any help or guidance you can provide.
cc @MMV Redux

Kind regards,