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#: 54416--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: January 21, 2025, 4:56 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Well that's not mitigation at all, do you have any actual
       mitigation: anything such as ill-health, financial difficulties,
       family problems, recent bereavements, work problems...
       #Post#: 54604--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: Hashim
       Date: January 22, 2025, 3:56 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It was to pick up food for my elderly mother who is at stage 7
       of dementia and needs constant 24/7 care. I had to leave my
       neighbour whilst I rushed out to get it for her as she only
       likes the food from that bakery. As a disabled person myself I
       had to rush to get back and parked in that spot not realising
       that it was for residents.
       Thanks
       Hashim
       #Post#: 54608--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: January 22, 2025, 4:41 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=354]Hashim[/member] do you have any medical
       documentation that could be provided to the council to confirm
       the above?
       #Post#: 54611--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: Hashim
       Date: January 22, 2025, 4:57 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes. I have diagnosis from the hospital/GP etc...
       #Post#: 54619--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: January 22, 2025, 5:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I think at the Notice to Owner stage it will be well worth
       deploying the strategy explained here
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/l-b-waltham-forest-50r-performing-a-prohibited-turn/msg7581/#msg7581
       For now please make an informal representation as follows:
       [indent]
       Dear London Borough of Newham,
       The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because the
       overall signage did not comply with regulation 18(1) of The
       Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
       Wales) Regulations 1996. There is a "DISABLED" legend on the
       road surface and this clearly indicates that the bay is for
       disabled badge holders, the regulations do not require any
       additional signs. I relied on the legend and displayed my blue
       badge correctly.
       There was also a shared use bay sign on the boundary between the
       bay I was parked in and the next bay, that sign had no
       directional signs and having seen the disabled legend, I had no
       reason to look for any other signs.
       If the bay is a permit bay, the appropriate legend would be
       "PERMIT HOLDERS", this would prompt road users to look at the
       upright sign to determine what type of permit is required.
       To put the council's case at its highest, the best that can be
       said is that the signage was ambiguous; in these circumstances
       no contravention occurred.
       Yours faithfully,
       [/indent]
       Send this online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.
       #Post#: 54676--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: Hashim
       Date: January 23, 2025, 6:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       All done!
       Thanks
       Let's wait for their response...
       Hashim
       #Post#: 54692--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: January 23, 2025, 8:03 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I can't find any authority for the use of the 'DISABLED' road
       marking with a permit holder traffic sign. Does anyone know of
       one?
       IMO, the road marking is only permissible if the bay is reserved
       for disabled badge holders, not disabled permit holders.
       #Post#: 54787--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: January 23, 2025, 2:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
       >
       > I can't find any authority for the use of the 'DISABLED' road
       marking with a permit holder traffic sign. Does anyone know of
       one?
       >
       > IMO, the road marking is only permissible if the bay is
       reserved for disabled badge holders, not disabled permit
       holders.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Isn't that exactly the point that we've made in the
       representations?
       #Post#: 54794--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: Enceladus
       Date: January 23, 2025, 2:56 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
       >
       > [quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=4713.msg54692#msg54692
       date=1737640983]
       > I can't find any authority for the use of the 'DISABLED' road
       marking with a permit holder traffic sign. Does anyone know of
       one?
       >
       > IMO, the road marking is only permissible if the bay is
       reserved for disabled badge holders, not disabled permit
       holders.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Isn't that exactly the point that we've made in the
       representations?
       [/quote]
       [member=1]cp8759[/member], [member=428]H C Andersen[/member]
       Well done for having a go. And I really hope that you help the
       OP prevail.
       This sign has been a bone of contention for years on PePiPoo
       with minimal success at Adjudication. I can't find a copy of the
       authorisation for the sign but I (vaguely) recall that there is
       one. It might pre-date the DFT making the authorisations
       available online. I hope I'm mistaken
       [member=428]H C Andersen[/member]. There is also an
       authorisation from the DfT to reduce the size of the bays.
       #Post#: 54802--------------------------------------------------
       Re: London Borough of Newham Code 165
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: January 23, 2025, 3:50 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There have been various permutations of this issue. In this
       case, a BB holder parked in a bay showing the road marking
       DISABLED and displayed their BB as required.
       They're being penalised because they're not a permit holder of
       the type specified in the sign.
       We've seen BB holders penalised because they parked thinking
       that the term 'disabled permit holder' applied to them and
       they've lost at adjudication. But here a blue badge holder
       parked because the bay was marked with a term which applies ONLY
       to BB holders and has no relevance to 'disabled permit holders'.
       IMO, this has nothing to do with the upright traffic sign, it's
       the road marking.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 3
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page