URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 44961--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham PCN event day code 30
   DIR By: Jamran
       Date: November 10, 2024, 2:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Emailed you. Thanks
       #Post#: 45209--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham PCN event day code 30
   DIR By: mrmustard
       Date: November 12, 2024, 8:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Checked back, the case I was thinking of was Tower Hamlets not
       Newham but there are still good arguments in this case.
       Just starting the Appeal now, on the following basis:
       The representations as made are relied upon.
       It is denied that the council have the right to regard the sale
       of chicken as an event requiring extra parking restrictions.
       It is denied that the council have incorporated this right into
       a traffic order or even that the traffic order mentions event
       days.
       It is denied that zone entry signs had been updated to show the
       date of 28 July 2024.
       It is denied that there is any link between a zone entry sign
       which sets the times for otherwise unsigned single yellow lines
       and a bay sign. Nothing on the bay sign informs a driver if it
       is an event day or not.
       #Post#: 49329--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham PCN event day code 30
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: December 11, 2024, 6:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Case yesterday.
       ------------
       2240495930
       10 Dec 2024
       This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
       parked in a permit holder only parking bay in Holland Road at
       9.18am on Sunday 9 June 2024 without a valid permit.
       I have looked at the CEO's photographs and the Council's site
       images. These show that Mr Manners' car was parked in a bay
       which was signed as being for parking by permit holders only
       during the restricted hours of 9am to 6pm from Mondays to
       Fridays. Beneath this, a further restriction read "On event days
       8am to 9pm". It is not in dispute that there was no valid permit
       for parking.
       The Council's evidence shows that Sunday 9 June 2024 was an
       Event Day.
       Mr Manners appeals because he says that the signage was not
       clear in Holland Road. He says that he had no way of knowing
       that this was an Event Day.
       The Council relies upon CPZ signs alerting motorists to Event
       Days. Library images are submitted of CPZ signs which carry an
       Event Day notice at the foot of the sign alerting motorists to
       the next such day.
       CPZ signs alert motorists to single yellow line parking
       restrictions. A motorist parking on a single yellow line in a
       CPZ is expected to check CPZ parking sign restrictions and, in
       so doing, will be aware of Event Day restrictions. However, a
       motorist parking in a resident's bay or a shared use bay is
       subject to the signed restrictions for the bay which may or may
       not be the same as CPZ restrictions.
       The time plate for this bay does not provide motorists with any
       information about Event Days. It does not refer the motorist to
       CPZ signs or to a website for details of Event Days. A motorist
       parking in the bay cannot be expected to know where to find
       details of Event Days.
       The signage is also misleading. The wording "On event days 8am
       to 9pm" appears directly beneath the Monday to Friday normal
       restricted hours so that the motorist could easily read the
       added restriction as meaning event days which are between Monday
       and Friday.
       I therefore find that the signage was not adequate and I allow
       the appeal for that reason.
       #Post#: 49383--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham PCN event day code 30
   DIR By: Jamran
       Date: December 11, 2024, 10:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you. Very promising
       #Post#: 52598--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Newham PCN event day code 30
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: January 9, 2025, 6:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Play a game of chicken with Mr Mustard and you will lose.
       ---------
       Case reference
       I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the Appellant’s
       representative Mr Dishman. His case is essentially that the sale
       of chicken does not amount to an event day and that the signage
       indicating the presence of an event day was in adequate. The
       onus is on the Council to prove that the day was an event day in
       law and that this fact was clearly and correctly indicated.
       An event day is defined in the Traffic Management Order provided
       by the Council as (so far as is relevant to the present case)
       “any other sporting or non-sporting activity which in the
       opinion of the Traffic Manager for the London Borough of Newham
       is likely to benefit from the scheme being in force”. There
       seems to me to be no evidence from such a person that he/she
       formed that opinion. In the circumstances I am unable to be
       satisfied the day in question was an event day within the
       meaning of the TMO and the Appeal must be allowed on that ground
       alone.
       (It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the signage in
       place on the route described by the Appellant was sufficiently
       clear – something which might well have necessitated an
       adjournment for the Council and/or the appellant to provide
       photographic evidence of the particular sign passed and its
       location.)
       *****************************************************
       Page 6 of 6
   DIR Previous Page