DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36705--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: September 13, 2024, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> My NtO came today
--- End Quote ---
Please to post all sides of it here, redacting only yr name &
address.
#Post#: 36712--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: September 13, 2024, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/GvTQtIj
HTML https://imgur.com/a/j1ggS0v
HTML https://imgur.com/a/H7ySarX
HTML https://imgur.com/a/BHWTJLm
#Post#: 36764--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 13, 2024, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Contravention did not occur.
The council's evidence as regards the contravention comprises
the PCN, CEO's notes and photos.
After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single
yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time
loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No
loading at any time'. There are no kerb blips evident between my
car and this traffic sign.
It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic
sign with a part-time loading restriction.
Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International
Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ
(SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the
CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea
Bridge Road.
My car was situated in CPZ BA.
It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent
belief because:
(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a
complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time'
cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time
restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as
to the extent of the loading restriction; or
(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this
is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time'
sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb
blips.
When either of the above is added to the lack of any further
kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading'
sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a
different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint
line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main
road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does
not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has
let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has
removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within
CPZ.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has
not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory
requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
Just some thoughts.
#Post#: 36766--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: September 13, 2024, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Contravention did not occur.
>
> The council's evidence as regards the contravention comprises
the PCN, CEO's notes and photos.
>
> After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint
single yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a
part-time loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating
'No loading at any time'. There are no kerb blips evident
between my car and this traffic sign.
>
> It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic
sign with a part-time loading restriction.
>
> Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International
Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ
(SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the
CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea
Bridge Road.
>
> My car was situated in CPZ BA.
>
> It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an
incoherent belief because:
>
> (a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed
a complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time'
cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time
restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as
to the extent of the loading restriction; or
>
> (b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but
this is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any
time' sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double
kerb blips.
>
> When either of the above is added to the lack of any further
kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading'
sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a
different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint
line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main
road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does
not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has
let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has
removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within
CPZ.
>
> If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has
not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory
requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
--- End Quote ---
Cheers mate, will draft something up this weekend.
#Post#: 36772--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 13, 2024, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
While the traffic order map shows double yellows with double
kerb clips in Polars Road, the associated info differentiates
between Poplars Road and Lee Bridge Road, with Poplars said to
be no waiting only.
This may be something to do with the installation of the posts,
which are fairly recent. A no loading sign also disappeared from
Poplars Road at this time (pic of it below). The order at the
time turned all single yellows in Poplars into double yellows so
while this was a double yellow there may be some conflict with
what they intended.
So perhaps something to include.
But the primary issue IMO is simply the markings/signage or lack
of leading you to park there and they really should at least use
discretion.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/G6g5di6.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7aJm4CB.png
#Post#: 36978--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: September 16, 2024, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I have drafted the response below, is there anything i should
add/remove?
To whom it may concern
I wish to appeal against my NtO on the bases the contravention
did not occur.
First and foremost the blips on the kerb are faded and barely
visible, it is your duty to maintain them so drivers can see
them easily.
Secondly, the PCN alleges a waiting and loading restriction,
however as you can see from the picture, in the 35m of double
yellow lines between the parking bays ending to the junction
with Lea Bridge, there is only 1 single faded blip on the kerb,
The law states:
Single 'blip': Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited for
a time that is not continuous through the year i.e. part-time;
These MUST be accompanied by a prescribed sign giving the
part-time days and hours.
Double blip: Loading and unloading of vehicles prohibited at all
times. A supplementary traffic sign is NOT required.
The fact the CEO presented evidence of a 'No loading at any
time' sign, demonstrates they believed that the markings were
single and needed a supplementary sign.
Furthermore, the 'No loading at any time' sign is situated
outside Kten International Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road
which is in a different CPZ (SB) whose gateway entrance sign can
be seen clearly in the CEO's photos situated outside For Her
Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea Bridge Road. My car was situated in CPZ
BA.
As there is no exit/entrance between Poplars Road & Lea Bridge
Road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge Road.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has
not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory
requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
I thus believe no contravention occurred and hence I displayed
my blue badge so I could park on the double yellow lines.
#Post#: 37039--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 16, 2024, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Too complicated I think.
They are relying on the CEO pics but there are no blips obvious
to a driver, the CEO pics don't show any well-marked sequence of
blips there, and there is no no-loading sign on that part of the
road, which is separated by posts from the main road.
You could say that you have reviewed Google Maps from the past
and markings used to be well-painted and there was a no-loading
sign in Poplars Road. These are now absent.
I would lose the stuff about a single blip and parking zones -
not relevant in my view.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/M96MmNg/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-22-00.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/sH912Rs/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-21-49.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/xCQjXhd/Screenshot-2024-09-16-at-13-22-27.png
#Post#: 37141--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: September 17, 2024, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks,
ive amended it to this. let me know if its ok to send now
To whom it may concern
I wish to appeal against my NtO on the basis the contravention
did not occur.
After careful study, the photos show at best a very faint single
yellow kerb blip adjacent to my car indicating a part-time
loading restriction. Beyond is a traffic sign stating 'No
loading at any time'. There are no well mark sequence of kerb
blips evident between my car and this traffic sign.
It is not lawful to display a 'No loading at any time' traffic
sign with a part-time loading restriction.
Furthermore, this sign is situated outside Kten International
Supermarket, 619-623 Lea Bridge Road which is in a different CPZ
(SB) whose gateway entrance sign can be seen clearly in the
CEO's photos situated outside For Her Hair and Beauty, 615 Lea
Bridge Road.
My car was situated in CPZ BA. Furthermore, due to the bollards
on the road, this sign can ONLY be seen if you are on Lea Bridge
road as cars cant enter or exit Poplars Road via the junction
with Lea Bridge Road.
It is self-evident that the CEO's photos indicate an incoherent
belief because:
(a) If they believed that the faint blip was single and needed a
complementary traffic sign, then the 'No loading at any time'
cannot be this sign because it does not indicate a part-time
restriction. It therefore follows that there is no evidence as
to the extent of the loading restriction; or
(b) The CEO thought that there were double kerb blips, but this
is undermined by them photographing a 'No loading at any time'
sign whose use is not permitted in conjunction with double kerb
blips.
When either of the above is added to the lack of any further
kerb blips in the 30m between my car and the 'No loading'
sign(contrary to regulations), the fact that this sign was in a
different road and CPZ and the disparity between the faint
line(s) in Poplars Road and the clear double blips in the main
road -see GSV snapshot - then it is clear that the council does
not have an extant loading restriction in Poplars Road but has
let whatever markings which existed fade to invisibility and has
removed whatever upright traffic signs applied to them within
CPZ.
If a loading restriction applies at the location then this has
not been marked and signed in accordance with regulatory
requirements and therefore the contravention did not occur.
I thus consider this PCN totally invalid and that it should be
cancelled with immediate effect.
Regards
#Post#: 37165--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 17, 2024, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said, this is too complicated.
Look at the two CEO pics I posted - they say:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oM4TIV6.png
I say an adjudicator would agree with you that there wasn't
anything clear to see and you didn't see it.
I would just say:
I am again challenging the PCN on the grounds that there I could
see no signage restricting the double yellow lines for blue
badge parking.
You refer to yellow kerb markings in pictures taken by your CEO
but I can't see anything clear, and there is not a clearly
marked sequence of kerb blips along that stretch of Poplars Road
to alert drivers to a loading restriction.
There is also not a no loading sign in Poplars Road, which is a
dead end, separated by posts from Lea Bridge Road.
I feel you have a duty to maintain adequate signage to enforce
such a restriction on disabled drivers and look forward to your
early confirmation of cancellation of this PCN.
#Post#: 37210--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN 02 - Waltham Forest - No signs and wrong road
DIR By: mkdon
Date: September 17, 2024, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers, I thought the more I include now the more likely they
are to cancel it. I'll just send them what you've written above
and should they still refuse then send my initial draft to
adjudicator. Waltham forest council are very stubborn. The
last 3 appeals I've one ended up taking over 12 months.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page