DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62182--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 12, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just done some reconnaissance and I can confirm my
findings.
So for clarity, they have the parking permit to park on Roman
road. That long bay has 2 different posts, one that says pay and
display only, and one that says permit holders or pay and
display.
Khartoum road the signs have been blacked out.
Is it better for me to start these as desperate topics? I had
originally started this topic as they did not receive any
replies to their challenges, but now that I have had a look
myself it seems that they should not have received these pcns in
my opinion anyway.
#Post#: 62183--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 12, 2025, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts
with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
HTML https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
#Post#: 62221--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 12, 2025, 7:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: anonymous link ---
>
> Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts
with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
>
>
HTML https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, yes, it is a complete nonsense, and I would think is a
slam-dunk appeal at London Tribunals. Normally when we have seen
things like this, it is two bays with a bay divider consisting
of a double-dashed line perpendicular to the kerb, and one sign
for each bay. Many people miss things like this, but here there
is no bay divider. So you should submit representations on the
basis that you parked and went to the nearest sign that told you
you could pay to park by phone, and that is what you did. Attach
a photo of the sign.
Don't be miffed if they refuse your reps, because councils
ruthlessly game the system to get the money in, so refuse almost
all informal representations and re-offer the discount. They do
this because they know most people, (>95%), then just cough-up
believing the council are right, and also don't want to risk the
full PCN penalty.
#Post#: 62230--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 12, 2025, 7:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=anonymous link=topic=5302.msg62183#msg62183
date=1741812239]
> Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts
with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
>
>
HTML https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, yes, it is a complete nonsense, and I would think is a
slam-dunk appeal at London Tribunals. Normally when we have seen
things like this, it is two bays with a bay divider consisting
of a double-dashed line perpendicular to the kerb, and one sign
for each bay. Many people miss things like this, but here there
is no bay divider. So you should submit representations on the
basis that you parked and went to the nearest sign that told you
you could pay to park by phone, and that is what you did. Attach
a photo of the sign.
Don't be miffed if they refuse your reps, because councils
ruthlessly game the system to get the money in, so refuse almost
all informal representations and re-offer the discount. They do
this because they know most people, (>95%), then just cough-up
believing the council are right, and also don't want to risk the
full PCN penalty.
[/quote]
Just to be clear the driver has a resident permit - they did not
pay to park. The sign post that said residents was the furthest
away albeit it was the same bay.
#Post#: 62249--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: March 13, 2025, 2:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can I make the representations for Khartoum Rd please. The
traffic warden is a cheat. They have not photographed the bay
sign as it is blacked out. No contravention has occurred. Email
mrmustard@zoho.com
#Post#: 62256--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 13, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit
holders C, 'except in signed bays'.
So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit C.
The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The
question then arises: was it signed correctly?
IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the
driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign
was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if
true.
A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use
thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not
occur.
The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction
is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction
was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an
equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the
restriction is, it's what's conveyed.
Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la
vie.
As for Roman..
This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays
unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again
in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in
this case a clear pay by phone sign.
#Post#: 62303--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 13, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
> Can I make the representations for Khartoum Rd please. The
traffic warden is a cheat. They have not photographed the bay
sign as it is blacked out. No contravention has occurred. Email
mrmustard@zoho.com
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you very much! I will send you an email.
#Post#: 62307--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 13, 2025, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit
holders C, 'except in signed bays'.
>
> So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit
C.
>
> The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The
question then arises: was it signed correctly?
>
> IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the
driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign
was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if
true.
>
> A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use
thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not
occur.
>
> The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction
is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction
was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an
equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the
restriction is, it's what's conveyed.
>
> Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la
vie.
>
> As for Roman..
>
> This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays
unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again
in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in
this case a clear pay by phone sign.
>
--- End Quote ---
The bay is very long. On one end of the bay it allows permit
holders, and on the other it does not. The signs contradict each
other for the same bay so surely either payment or permit should
be allowed?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/c5ttDpD/Screenshot-2025-03-11-164944.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/99TsHLnW/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-15-50.png
#Post#: 62316--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 13, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there
as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's
redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
#Post#: 62327--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Appealed - No reply received
DIR By: anonymous
Date: March 13, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there
as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's
redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying
that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at
all?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page