Free Traffic Legal Advice

Seems very petty when your car was beyond the junction, albeit still in the box.

The box exceeds the junction as squared off with the junction on other side of road.

I know this restriction well. It is basically a scaled down version of previous LTN in Greenwich implemented and dropped in 2022.

The prohibition has been live since November. Enforcement delayed until January. 

If OP is from Charlton, then there has been a LOT of chatter about this on social media. Especially as Charlton residents are concerned that the restrictions in Greenwich will create vehicle overspill to Charlton (Along Victoria Way etc.)  Edit. I realise they may have moved out of the area.

The issue about insufficient signage, which delayed the enforcement.  This related a) Insufficient advance notice b) the original signs implied that access was allowed to all Blue Badge vehicles, whereas access was only allowed to cars pre-registered as exempt [Blue badge holders can nominate one car only] .  These issues have been largely, but not entirely, addressed before enforcement.

Had the OP had been travelling Northbound (i.e. down Crooms hill) then there is a very good case for insufficient notice.  As there are no advance notices until the restriction itself, at which point the driver is faced with a fait accompli, as the road is narrow and no escape routes available.
Ironically my wife drove Northbound in contravention, and I prepared a challenge. But no PCN arrived...

However as the driver is travelling northbound, there are advance notices, as you describe [albeit compromised].  Also there is a clear straight run to the restrictions at the junction with Nevada St. where the restriction notices and the wooden planters are obvious and clear.  There are escape routes via Nevada St & Burney St. So I think the contravention is clear.

So I fear only hope is to plead for clemency or find a administrative error.

The Greenwich (Charged-For Parking Places) Order 2018

Has the following relevant section on suspended bays, given the suspension reason was defined as "works" on the suspension notice:


(3) Any person duly authorised by the Council or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
may suspend the use of a parking place or any part thereof whenever he considers such suspension
reasonably necessary:

(b) for the purpose of any building operation, demolition or excavation adjacent to or in the
near vicinity of the parking place, the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of
the highway or the cleaning of gullies in or adjacent to or in the near vicinity of the
parking place, the laying, ****, alteration or repair in or adjacent to or in the near
vicinity of the parking place of any sewer or of any main, pipe or apparatus for the
supply of gas, water or electricity or of any electronic communications network or the
placing, maintenance or removal of any traffic sign;


(5) On the suspension of the use of a parking place or any part thereof in accordance with the
provisions of this Article, the person authorising or causing such suspension shall place or cause to be
placed in or adjacent to that parking place or that part thereof, as the case may be, a traffic sign indicating
that waiting by vehicles is prohibited:



I await the actual TMO. But it seems that from the above the council have not shot themselves in the foot by requiring a compliant warning sign - which does not exist. See London Borough of Camden Case No. : 2090523567 link above - but simply a  "traffic sign indicating that waiting by vehicles is prohibited".

As the same case also says:

In cases of bay suspensions I and many other adjudicators have taken the view that provided the Council can prove that the bay was lawfully authorised for suspension, and that there was a sign or signs properly sited which gave a clear indication of that fact, the motorist parking there will be in contravention.

Yes Andy, but as this is a general query that might be useful to others I posted here.

{  note to viewers, I originally posted this question in Flame Pit ]

How do you know you were in contravention at 9.20, the sign doesn't say anything about extent of restriction. Was it 0001- H hour or 0900 to 0915 and was it only on 10th or what?

IMO, the sign is defective as it doesn't give hours or days.

I would have thought that if no time explicit time is given on a dated suspension sign, then the assumption should be whole 24 hours.

However I  had a little delve into the internet to find out if the sign is compliant. The following may give me a get out.


The Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not define the yellow suspension sign used by most enforcement authorities to control parking.

Hence it is necessary for enforcement authorities to seek DfT authorisation for such signs, under Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Someone did a FOI request to DOT to establish this in 2020.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/authority_for_parking_suspension

 

We encourage authorities to apply for an authorisation for their parking
suspension signs which permits their use at any appropriate location on their
roads. The authorisation specifies the information that can be shown on the
sign, and its size, colour and character. All authorisations for this traffic sign
which have been issued since 1 January 2011 may be viewed on the
Department’s authorisation database at:

The reply included a list of  enforcement authorities who have DfT authorisation.
There is no sign of Greenwich, or indeed any authorities, seeking authorisation for suspension signs. 


www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/


There is a case in London Tribunals which won on similar basis.


Case from 2010

Yep. Definitely registered as keeper with correct address.

Just looked up Greenwich council's request form for suspension, in which they ask applicant for 10 days notice.

https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/apply-park-your-property-or-restricted-place/apply-suspend-parking

I also note that other councils require notice to give neighbours 7 days notice. So I can't rely on insufficient notice.

Perhaps my challenge should have been more apologetic asking for mitigation...

Any chance of a technical challenge?