DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59564--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: Andu_Alex
Date: February 24, 2025, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=7]mrmustard[/member] ,
Thank you so much sir, I've just emailed you the letter.
#Post#: 59565--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: February 24, 2025, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There was a rogue space in the email address
mrmustard@zoho.com is correct
#Post#: 59566--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: Andu_Alex
Date: February 24, 2025, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=7]mrmustard[/member] , the email can't be sent to the
email adress you sent me, it said is invalid email adress.
My email adress is ina_tonita@yahoo.co.uk
Could you kindly send me a line so i can reach you please.
#Post#: 59594--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: February 25, 2025, 3:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP and are are now in touch.
#Post#: 64865--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 30, 2025, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a tow case that is very similar.
-------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons
restricted street during the prescribed hours. Rather, it was
issued for parking in a residents' or shared use bay without a
valid permit. That is because the vehicle was not parked on part
of the road marked with a single or double yellow line but was,
instead, parked in a parking bay.
Mr. Razaq makes the point that there were no signs in the
vicinity of the parking bay indicating what, if any,
restrictions applied in that bay. The enforcement authority (EA)
has provided no evidence of any signage indicating that the bay
in question was indeed a residents'/shared use parking place.
Instead, the EA has provided a single photograph of what is
known as a controlled parking zone (CPZ) entrance sign, which is
to be found at item 1 of the Part 3 sign table in Schedule 5 to
the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The
sign appears to be on a street called Balaam Street, which is a
street not shown in the map provided by the EA. This photograph
does not assist the EA's case one bit, however. A CPZ entrance
sign informs motorists of the prescribed hours of the restricted
streets, marked with single yellow lines, within the CPZ to
which it applies. It is not the appropriate sign to inform
motorists of parking restrictions in parking bays. Indeed, the
sign shown in the photograph says nothing about any requirement
to possess or display a parking permit when parking in bays.
If the EA wished to create a permit parking area (and not a CPZ)
the appropriate sign is that at item 5 of the Part 3 sign table.
But that is not the sign that was used. The EA's case summary
and notice of rejection indicate a confusion on its part between
a CPZ and a permit parking area. They are in fact quite distinct
and require different signage. It is surprising that the EA
seems to be confused about such a fundamental distinction in
terms of parking restrictions.
Mr. Razaq is correct to say there is no evidence of any signage
informing motorists of the restrictions, if any, applicable to
the parking bay in which his vehicle was parked. He made that
point very clearly in his representations against the PCN and
the fee for the removal and recovery of his vehicle. Those
representations should have been accepted. The contravention is
not proved and the appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 68769--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: April 26, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex - please look at the email I sent you with a draft witness
statement.
For the update of followers: Appeal started 28 Feb, councikl
evidence dated 10 April, video hearing 7 May. Skeleton and
witness statement prepared for signing and filing.
#Post#: 68779--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 26, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is Newham's evidence - if it's the same as the case above I
posted a costs award must surely be made.
#Post#: 68781--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: April 26, 2025, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you send me an email (mrmustard@zoho.com) I will ask for the
OP's permission to send you a copy of the pack.
I no longer apply for costs because the Appellant doesn't incur
any when represented by me for a charity donation alone.
#Post#: 70416--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: May 7, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hearing took about 10 minutes. My skeleton argument was praised
for bringing clarity to the situation. The council failed to
prove the restriction and signage and a full refund will be
ordered.
#Post#: 70483--------------------------------------------------
Re: No street parking signs, car impounded.
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: May 8, 2025, 1:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Case 2250106627
Mr Dishman represented Mr Stupu at this appeal hearing. The
Authority did not attend and was not represented.
Mr Dishman relied on his written grounds which included:
‘The TMO does not create a parking restriction at the location
in question, whether for residents or at all. The TMO does not
create a Restricted Parking Zone / past this point zone. The PCN
is for the wrong alleged contravention.’
The alleged contravention is ‘12 - Parked resident/shared use
without a valid permit’ on Alnwick Road.
The civil enforcement officer’s photographs establish that on 14
January 2025, this car was parked in a bay, before being removed
by its agent’s vehicle.
According to the Authority ‘Alnwick Road is part of the Custom
House (CMH) Residential parking zone and the time plate states:
Monday – Saturday 8am-6:30pm Permit holders CMH parking only.’
The Authority provided no contemporaneous photographic evidence
to establish the presence of signage near the vehicle. Although
the Authority has submitted that the vehicle was parked within a
parking zone whereby adequate entry point signs might obviate
the need for additional signs within the zone, it provided no
photographic evidence that there was any such signage was in
place.
The Authority evidence does not establish that the signage was
adequate, so as to indicate and thus lawfully enforce this
restriction.
The Authority did not provide a plan which plots the location
within the area indicated in the Order. Schedule 1 of the Order
provides that certain parts of Alnwick Road fall within the
zone, though neither the officer’s notes nor any other evidence,
establishes that the car was in a location within Alnwick Road
which was subject to the Order.
The appeal is allowed.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page