DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 35896--------------------------------------------------
Newham / 12- resident parking/ Hanover Ave. E16
DIR By: SMPL
Date: September 6, 2024, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I received the attached PCN. It was placed on the rare window.
Is there any ground to appeal it?
Thank you in advance.
Google maps link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/AqAMvvCLepr11h6G8
Google drive to download pcn details:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Z_wSWEsTKXQgHBOr7LHA9p-taw5z07Xl?usp=sharing
#Post#: 35905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham / 12- resident parking/ Hanover Ave. E16
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 6, 2024, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've been caught by a resident parking zone - there should be
signs on both sides of the entry to the zone and repeaters if
it's a large zone.
Were you aware of this.
The CEO took this pic:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vVkqVy7.jpeg
#Post#: 35965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham / 12- resident parking/ Hanover Ave. E16
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 6, 2024, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We've seen this location before, and the problem for us is that
GSV is way out-of-date, once you drive in (virtually of course
!!), the last trip by the GSV camera van was 2015 at the
entrance to Hanover Avenue: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Acgsjj2gZdWnE3yJ8
and no "Permit Zone"signs are present.
Normally, for Permit Only parking, visitors can obtain a day
permit from the resident being visited. These can be either
paper-based scratch-out cards, or virtual ones obtained using
the council website.
So, were you visiting anybody on that street ?
The street directly opposite Hanover Avenue has a later GSV view
of 2022, in which one can see it is virtually all permit bays,
but individually signed. Clearly the attractiveness of this
area's location to the Docklands Light Railway station West
Silvertown, plus bus services on Silvertown Way was too
attractive for commuters wanting free parking, so daytime
parking restrictions have been imposed. In London, if
unrestricted and free parking seems too good to be true, then it
IS too good to be true.
Here is the relevant regulation concerning service of a PCN by a
CEO: -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/9/made
#Post#: 36439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham / 12- resident parking/ Hanover Ave. E16
DIR By: SMPL
Date: September 11, 2024, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> You've been caught by a resident parking zone - there should
be signs on both sides of the entry to the zone and repeaters if
it's a large zone.
>
> Were you aware of this.
>
> The CEO took this pic:
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vVkqVy7.jpeg
>
--- End Quote ---
No, I have not been aware of this. Does this help me in any way?
#Post#: 36444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham / 12- resident parking/ Hanover Ave. E16
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 11, 2024, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you can go back you could look at how good or not the entry
signage is and also if repeater signs are there in the zone.
These decisions suggest it could be won if Newham doesn't supply
good evidence but the adjudicator needs to be led.
--------
Hanover Avenue
Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
--------
2240177742
The appellant did not attend the hearing arranged for 21 May and
I have decided his appeal on the basis of correspondence and
exhibits sent to this tribunal.
I have accepted the officer decision to decision to issue a
penalty charge notice on the unattended car was justified. The
penalty charge is payable as the vehicle was in a resident's
parking place without the necessary permit.
I have accepted the limitation to RDW permit holders was
sufficiently indicated by signage stating "Permit holders
parking only past this point Mon-Sun 8am - 6.30pm.
I have been unable to accept the appellant argument that the
location where ticketed was reasonably interpreted as an area
that did not require a permit on account of being an area for
delivery vehicles or otherwise exempt from the need to have a
RDW permit.
Earlier opportunity for discount has expired and cannot now be
reset.
--------
2220181135
The vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice and
subsequently removed. The Appellant complains about the lack of
adequate signage of the restrictions.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs show the close-up of
one sign that restricts parking to permit holders “beyond this
point”. There are no notes telling me where this sign is
located. The Notice of Rejection states “There are signs at the
beginning of the road where you parked…” The Case Summary says,
“there are clear signs at the entrance of Hanover Avenue as
photographed by the Civil Enforcement Officer".
Since the Appellant disputes the signage is clear, I adjourned
the case and asked the council to provide a site plan showing:
1. Which areas are restricted for residents. 2. Where all
resident bay signs are posted. 3. The location of the sign
photographed by the CEO. 4. Where this vehicle was parked.
There has been no response.
I do not find on the evidence before me that the restriction is
adequately signed. One small sign, wherever it has been placed,
is not sufficient to mark a restriction that applies in this
entire area.
--------
2190346141
Mr Christie attended the appeal hearing. He appeals against the
Penalty Charge Notice issued to his vehicle and the removal for
an alleged contravention on 9 June 2019 in Hanover Avenue.
Hanover Road is within the Royal Docks West Resident Parking
Zone which requires permits to be displayed.
Mr Christie went to the area to participate in an event in Wake
Docklands. He followed the satellite navigation to Hanover
Avenue and entered the road at Britannia Gate. Hanover Avenue
has commercial premises on the other side of the road with
parking areas and a residential area as well.
The only signs indicating a permit was required for vehicles
beyond that point is placed on either side of the road very near
the entrance to Hanover Avenue. There are no repeater signs and
no evidence of a Tow Away sign present. The signs appear to
cover the whole area of the Parking Zone. No signs are present
at the entrance to either Capulet Mews or Fitzwilliam Mews.
Mr Christie drove down the road some 179 yards and parked his
vehicle. He noted the two bays to his right has ZIP notices. No
other signs were visible and no sign was placed on the wall in
the space used by Mr Christie or the adjacent space.
Mr Christie has raised issues about ownership of the land he was
parked on but I have decided this is not relevant as such to the
issue I deal with today.
It is incumbent on all enforcement authorities to ensure there
is clear and unambiguous signage that allows drivers using the
road and the surrounding area, to know exactly what restrictions
are in operation at any given time. Having missed the two small
signs at the entrance Mr Christie was not aware of the
restrictions. He noted signs for ZIP cards so did not use those
spaces and he also noted a house which appeared to have its own
parking space although no sign was present on the wall.
Whilst it is incumbent on drivers to look for signs regarding
parking restrictions I am satisfied Mr Christie did so. He is
not required to go down and retrace his route to ensure he can
park in the area. He walked from his vehicles to the Docklands
and did not see any other sign indicating it was permit only
area. It appears the enforcement authority allow Zip Cars to
sign a bay but no sign is placed to enforce the signs at the
entrance of the road.
Taking all the evidence into account I am satisfied the area was
not sufficiently signed. It is unreasonable for an enforcement
authority to rely on one sign at the entrance to a large area
without adding either repeaters signs or to sign each parking
bay. If the Authority permit a car company to sign their
reserved area there is also a reasonable expectation the
Authority would sign the other bays with a notice indicating a
permit was required. In addition the enforcement authority
should also indicate that vehicles may be removed. There is no
evidence of any such sign within the area. The appeal is allowed
on the grounds there was insufficient signage to give validity
to the penalty charge.
-----------
2190194440
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
parked in a resident's parking place in Hanover Avenue at 1.15pm
on 30 March 2019 without displaying a valid permit.
Mr Anifowose says that there were no signs restricting parking
where his car was parked. The library images from the Council
show, however, that there is a sign attached to a post on both
sides of the road at the entrance to Hanover Avenue. The signs
warn motorists that there is permit holder only parking "beyond
this point" during the controlled hours of 8am to 6.30pm Mondays
to Sundays. I am satisfied from this evidence that the
restrictions are properly signed.
Mr Anifowose says that he was feeling drowsy and sick. He says
that he parked up the car to find somewhere to lodge. There is
no medical evidence of any condition which prevented the driver
from being able to park the car in an authorised parking place.
I am not satisfied that this was a situation where the vehicle
was prevented from being moved by circumstances beyond the
driver's control.
The power to remove the vehicle arose 30 minutes after the time
of issue of the PCN. The vehicle was removed at 2.05pm.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1