DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70622--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN -Contravention 12 - WANDSWORTH Council (Defaced sign)
DIR By: poorthing
Date: May 9, 2025, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks cp8759 for drafting and Stamford man. Will keep you
posted. Thanks.
#Post#: 70633--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN -Contravention 12 - WANDSWORTH Council (Defaced sign)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 9, 2025, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would have expanded, but if it's been sent then so be it.
My take.
I would set the scene clearly.
I parked and displayed a permit provided to me by relatives who
live at ****. They understood that parking at the location was
permitted. I noticed the sign but it was so defaced that I
wasn't able to determine that it stated anything different to
what I had been told. I now know that my relatives were
incorrect.
The location sits within a parking place which is situated in
Austin Road and extends from its junction with Charlotte Despard
Avenue to Astle Street where it terminates at Henley Street. The
council have placed three traffic signs, each on a lamp column
numbered respectively 008,009 and 010. The distance between lamp
columns 008 and 010 is approx. 60m. The CEO has submitted a
single photo of a traffic sign, in this case on lamp column 010.
The CEO's photos also show my car parked adjacent to lamp column
008 which begs the question, why? Why did the CEO walk 120m from
my car to lamp column 010 and back when they could have
photographed the traffic sign on lamp column 008 or even 009?
The answer is in my enclosed photos which show that these signs
have been so defaced that they are unreadable. Therefore the CEO
had to go to the furthest sign in order to produce, in their
mind, a photo with any evidential value. It therefore follows
that in order for the PCN to withstand scrutiny the council
believe that the driver was similarly obliged to traipse past
not one but two traffic signs in the hope (but not necessarily
expectation) of finding one which was readable. The council will
be aware that there are numerous adverse adjudication decisions
based upon this point.
While I sympathise with the council in that they have to bear
the cost and inconvenience of making repairs to these traffic
signs, this cannot be visited on unfortunate motorists and the
PCN should be cancelled.
#Post#: 70636--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN -Contravention 12 - WANDSWORTH Council (Defaced sign)
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 9, 2025, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - I would state that relatives and you were led to
reasonably believe the parking by the entrance* to their
particular house on the estate was covered by their permit and
the signage in its present state did not reasonably show
otherwise.
*or front
#Post#: 70647--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN -Contravention 12 - WANDSWORTH Council (Defaced sign)
DIR By: poorthing
Date: May 9, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks HC Anderson and Stamford Man. Have not yet sent so will
expand / redraft and send. Thanks a lot everyone.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page