DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: December 30, 2023, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What no-one seems to have looked at so far is Haringey's
authorisation from the DfT for its temporary parking suspension
signage. Surprising theough it might seem, Haringey obtained its
authorisation back in 2011 and appears never to have updated it.
Here it is:
HTML https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2964.pdf
You will note at para 1(a) that it states specifically that the
year should be omitted from the suspension notice. And the sign
as photographed clearly shows the year as "23". This was common
rubric back at that time and a lot of councils have updated
their authorisations to provide that the year may or may not be
shown. However it seems that Haringey have been lazy and a) have
not updated the auth and b) simply copied RBKC's diagram as you
can see from the authority name on the bottom. However note that
at 1(c) the authority name may be varied or omitted so this is
not evidence of non-compliance in itself.
I never understood why the original batch of authorisations
provided for omission of the year but the fact is that they did
and if the authorisation specifically states that the year
should be omitted and it is in fact included, this looks like a
non-compliant sign to me. As a secondary matter, I can't tell
from the photos as posted whether the suspension signs have the
side-wings with the appropriate verbiage but if not, this would
be additional evidence of non-compliance.
One for Mr Mustard to consider in drafting up a formal appeal
but it must be one more football lined up in front of the
goalmouth - or at least an indirect free kick :)
#Post#: 13091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: December 30, 2023, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I can see the side-wings in post #12. Looks compliant.
#Post#: 13093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: December 30, 2023, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Chaseman. Probably wait and see if the DoT authorisation
finds itself in the evidence pack and if not try to eliminate
the sign altogther as no proof of validity.
I have only been to the tribunal against Haringey 12 times since
2017. I am 12-0 in the lead.
#Post#: 14420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 27, 2024, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My 28 day argument is now failing but luckily I went first of
all with the inadequate signage in the Appeal which i started on
29 December.
It is the duty of the EA to erect sufficient signs as to convey
adequate information to motorists using the road. The EA erected
a number of signs to try and indicate that the part of the bay
from no. 4 to no. 54 was suspended. The first sign seen by
motorists driving along was on the sign post roughly in line
with the party wall of no's 6 & 8. Anyone parking outside no. 4,
the start of the bay, would see that sign. The final sign was
attached to the sign post outside of 48. It was behind the
Appellant's car which was parked outside no. 54. The next sign
post ahead, outside of 62 did not bear a suspension sign.
The effect of the missing sign was to make it appear that the
place where the Appellant parked was not suspended. I think that
in order to provide adequate information the EA should book end
at least the suspended area plus a bit more if the location of
the available posts so require.
The EA refer to a coned area in their Notice of Rejection. They
have not provided evidence of the placement of cones, which
would have been helpful to the Appellant in delineating the
suspended area.
The in person hearing was listed for 1 February 2024. I just
checked the portal for evidence and found a 'Do not Contest'
cancellation from the council. Wise of them.
#Post#: 14421--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 27, 2024, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re the 28 day argument: isn't it funny that, when "the usual
suspects" establish a legal flaw, it soon begins to fail!? Well
done re the DNC.
#Post#: 14482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey PCN - Code 21(I) Parked in a suspended bay - La
Rose Lane
DIR By: ltn_hell
Date: January 28, 2024, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
>
> The in person hearing was listed for 1 February 2024. I just
checked the portal for evidence and found a 'Do not Contest'
cancellation from the council. Wise of them.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would like to express my appreciation to mrmustard for all his
kind help with this case.
Thank you for all your help. You are a true credit to this forum
and to all unfairly treated motorists.
Thanks again!
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page