DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8707--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Londoner
Date: October 29, 2023, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> These are the permit parking area cases I have to hand:
>
> Stephanie Martin v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
(KI00006-1905, 21 June 2019)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1CA19mTqe16e61jpg9iEhG7QXBxfiBpSW
> Shetal Patel v London Borough of Harrow (2220650316, 27
October 2022)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1xZjjLoGbTaLsTaDBgOacE5uTukj4_c3x
> Sabera Lee v London Borough of Harrow (2220689923, 04 November
2022)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1gWhzGqcAd9WIqwDkOROD2cegF_0lGFYE
> Ameeta Kumar v London Borough of Harrow (2220814027, 17
December 2022)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1z6ReY9ibyKmyVIj1h8PTWK3Jd8engSoV
> John Fellows v London Borough of Harrow (2230367923, 18
September 2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14CwDmqKYLw-b-fvuPhqxTuxdsnJ3auo9
>
> In essence, the argument to be made is that a single sign at
the entrance to the zone is inadequate, and the council should
have provided repeaters. Try drafting a representation based on
those decisions and post it on here and we'll tidy it up for
you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks. Will get to work.
#Post#: 9033--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Londoner
Date: November 2, 2023, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
See below my initial draft for appeal to council. I will be
upfront in saying I drafted part of this appeal with help from
ChatGPT. I welcome and look forward to any feedback.
To whom this may concern,
I am writing to appeal a Penalty Charge Notice that was issued
to me on [Date] for parking without a valid resident parking
permit in [Location].
Upon receiving the PCN, I carefully reviewed the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of the notice. I acknowledge that there
is a sign at the entrance of the access road displaying parking
restrictions. However, I would like to bring to your attention
that this is the only sign in the area and it is located
approximately 120 meters away from the place where I was parked.
Also there were no repeater signs within view of my parking
space, which could have provided clear and unambiguous notice of
the parking restrictions in place. I have also parked here in
the past without issue, further reinforcing my belief that there
were no parking restrictions in place in the location where I
parked.
I believe that it is imperative for residents and visitors alike
to be provided with adequate and conspicuous signage to ensure
compliance with parking regulations. In this instance, the
absence of repeater signs in close proximity to my parking space
created an unintentional oversight on my part.
I kindly request that you reconsider the issuance of this
Penalty Charge Notice, taking into consideration the absence of
clear and visible signage in the vicinity of my parking space. I
genuinely value and respect the importance of adhering to
parking regulations and assure you that I will exercise
increased vigilance in the future.
Enclosed with this appeal letter, please find evidence
supporting my claim showing the distance between signage and
parking location.
I would be grateful if you could review my case at your earliest
convenience. I am confident that, with your understanding of the
situation, a fair resolution can be reached.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Londoner
HTML https://i.ibb.co/BwsF860/screencapture-calcmaps-map-distance-2023-11-02-15-56-19.png
HTML https://ibb.co/PtC0BWq
#Post#: 9091--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Londoner
Date: November 3, 2023, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Need to submit by tomorrow to maintain 50% discount. Would you
guys be able to share your wisdom re. above reps or if it is
good to go?
Thank you!
#Post#: 9179--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 4, 2023, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That looks like a reasonable challenge. I'd fully expect the
council to reject it, and you'll likely have to take this to the
tribunal in due course.
#Post#: 11366--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 27, 2023, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For later, The Newham (Royal Docks West) (Parking Places) (No.
1) Order 2017
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Kr50CEjJEhyIoTVTXfWVt230njGwKQmE.
#Post#: 12469--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Londoner
Date: December 15, 2023, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
See Newham's reply below.
The one thing that stood out for me is "Motorists are expected
to check what restrictions are in force BEFORE LEAVING THEIR
VEHICLES UNATTENDED." - That is precisely what I did, and there
were no signs indicating restrictions within sight.
As always, I'd like to hear your opinions on whether I have a
strong enough defence to continue, or if I should pay the
discounted amount now.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/y6qTKXZ/Screenshot-20231215-103426-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/JvHL8KG
HTML https://i.ibb.co/gPCYCqy/Screenshot-20231215-103439-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/dLyZyCB
HTML https://i.ibb.co/H7hP8Dp/Screenshot-20231215-103447-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/cJY8ncX
#Post#: 12515--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: December 15, 2023, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
YOu have quite a reasonable case if the signs at the entry to
the zone are all that there is. However, they have cunningly
re-offered the discount, so it is your decision whether to get
closure by paying the discount, or to risk the extra £65 at
London Tribunals, (no discount option there). It is always the
case when parking in London that if something looks too good to
be true, then it IS too good to be true. Did you park so you
could use the DLR to get to town ? It looks almost certain that
is the reason why this RPZ has been established.
#Post#: 12557--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Londoner
Date: December 16, 2023, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the reply to my informal reps. I understand that they
have to re-offer the discount regardless, at this stage.
I had parked there as I was visiting an exhibition at the nearby
Excel. Perhaps there were no parking restrictions the last time
I'd parked here as it has been a number of years since I'd
visited the excel by car.
While £65 is a tough one to swallow, £130 is obviously even
harder. What are the odds of winning this at tribunal?
#Post#: 12566--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: December 16, 2023, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Londoner link ---
>
> This is the reply to my informal reps. I understand that they
have to re-offer the discount regardless, at this stage.
> I had parked there as I was visiting an exhibition at the
nearby Excel. Perhaps there were no parking restrictions the
last time I'd parked here as it has been a number of years since
I'd visited the excel by car.
>
> While £65 is a tough one to swallow, £130 is obviously even
harder. What are the odds of winning this at tribunal?
>
--- End Quote ---
At the moment, not good because we see a clear sign at the
entrance to the zone and have no knowledge of what there might
be once inside, (repeater signs). GSV is not sufficiently
up-to-date on this, so to prove their absence you'd have to do
some leg work, and even then might not win at London Tribunals.
However, a case in Wales recently, (at the Traffic Penalty
Tribunal) won on this aspect. The point that won was the turn
into the zone was from a busy road, so the attention of the
drive was elsewhere, for safety reasons. This location also had
no repeaters. So it really hinges on that.
So if you want to take the matter further you need more back-up
to your case, I'm afraid.
#Post#: 12570--------------------------------------------------
Re: 12 - Newham - Parked Without Valid Permit - No Road Markings
or Signage in Sight.
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: December 17, 2023, 3:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not binding on another Adjudicator however this appeal on the
London Tribunals site supports your case. It seems to be the
only recent case concerning the area where you parked. It's
about the lack of signage in the area where you parked.
The sign shown in your rejection letter, the only sign that you
passed, is presumably situated on the start of Hanover Avenue at
it's junction with the Britannia Village roundabout? Are you
able to check? If so please take your own pictures of the
sign(s). GSV predates the signs so doesn't help.
Case Details
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
subsequently removed. The Appellant complains about the lack of
adequate signage of the restrictions.
The Civil Enforcement Officer’s photographs show the close-up of
one sign that restricts parking to permit holders “beyond this
point”. There are no notes telling me where this sign is
located. The Notice of Rejection states “There are signs at the
beginning of the road where you parked…” The Case Summary says,
“there are clear signs at the entrance of Hanover Avenue as
photographed by the Civil Enforcement Officer".
Since the Appellant disputes the signage is clear, I adjourned
the case and asked the council to provide a site plan showing:
1. Which areas are restricted for residents. 2. Where all
resident bay signs are posted. 3. The location of the sign
photographed by the CEO. 4. Where this vehicle was parked.
There has been no response.
I do not find on the evidence before me that the restriction is
adequately signed. One small sign, wherever it has been placed,
is not sufficient to mark a restriction that applies in this
entire area.
Authority Response
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page