Free Traffic Legal Advice

Are you sure it’s today? I logged on to Westminster website and said fine will increase on Monday?

Never the less, will try to appeal today

So is it still worth appealing with the above? Think reps need to be submitted by end of week so wondering if draft is ok? Thanks

Okay thanks, so worth appealing on the basis of misleading signage? Have drafted the below, please let me know feedback:

I challenge this PCN on the basis that the restriction was not adequately conveyed by the signage at the location.

The Council’s own photographs show a number of different restrictions displayed on signage in close proximity, including motorcycle restrictions, resident permit restrictions and payment information. The sign relied upon is not positioned in a way that clearly identifies the exact bay to which it applies.

For bays with different restrictions, clear signing normally requires the restriction for each bay to be unmistakable — for example, signs mounted together with clear arrows or positioning indicating which individual bay or section they govern. In this case, the signage arrangement is ambiguous and could reasonably mislead a motorist.

Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the Council has a duty to ensure that restrictions are adequately indicated. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the resident permit restriction was clearly conveyed for the precise location where the vehicle was parked.

I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled.

The PCN can be seen within the link I shared. I think the confusion lies with the signage, which seems to only apply to motorcycles however the section under it is for vehicles which gave the impression it was ok to park there.

I’ll fish out the GSV link and send through shortly

Response in link https://imgpile.com/p/xlDqfMB#Mj22T9d

Thanks for this, makes sense. Does any evidence need to be attached eg pic of road sign?

Thanks - I’ve tweaked the draft

Ground: The contravention did not occur

I make formal representations on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The PCN was issued for contravention code 19s. This code applies where a vehicle is parked with an invalid permit, voucher, or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid-for time.

At the time of the alleged contravention, there was an active pay-by-phone session with Ealing Council for Carlton Road from 08:08 to 09:30. The PCN was issued at 09:17 on Carlton Gardens, during the period of that active session. This is therefore not a case of expired time, nor a case where no payment had been made.

A live payment made for an adjacent location is not an obvious or proper fit for contravention code 19s as defined. The alleged contravention is therefore not made out.

Further, the council’s rejection states that payment by phone was not usable in this bay. This is incorrect. The council’s own photographic evidence shows signage stating “Permit holders or pay by phone…”, confirming that payment by phone is permitted at this location.

The rejection therefore fails to address the actual circumstances and relies on a clear factual error regarding the signage.

In the circumstances, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.

NtO has arrived. Is the draft I posted above ok to send?