Hi guys.

Received a PCN from Croydon Council on 08/11/19 for parking in a suspended bay. There was a suspension sign affixed to a fence adjacent to the row of bays which I didn't notice on leaving the car, but no restrictions noted on the signpost relevant to these bays.

Additionally, I feel that the restriction shown on the signage is rather vague, referring only to 'end 4 bays this end'.

It was affixed to the signpost for the bays on the opposite site of the road, where the actual roadworks were set up but no activity was taking place.

Attached the PCN and some of the council pictures/my own - is there any ground on which to fight this or should I just pay up?


Photos here. Council ones are timestamped

That response was automatically generated by Response Master, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBWvEC5kVqo

As a result, all decision letters from the London Borough of Croydon are consistently correct (not). Of course, Response Master likely doesn't have a templated paragraph to deal with why a sign wasn't attached to the same post as the timeplate, which is why the rejection letter doesn't mention it.

Thought that was a spoof - it's real...

If Croydon is using it they should ask for their money back.

The list of councils that uses Response Master is included in the master spreadsheet, see column C where it says "Section 43(2) exemption - uses Response Master by Barbour Logic"

Am registered keeper but V5C is still registered to another address, to which I have access. Will that affect anything?




Letter is dated 22nd November.



You're guaranteed the right to a fair appeal so!

I was thinking that the letter read like a bunch of unrelated paragraphs had been spliced together.

The notices will go to that address, so it is important that you get any post forwarded or picked up without delay.

Not a worry, I'm there almost every day.

Am registered keeper but V5C is still registered to another address, to which I have access. Will that affect anything?

Within the parking enforcement process, no (as per cp).
Within car insurance requirements, I'm less sure. As the RK should be the person by whom the vehicle is usually kept then this implies that the RK's address should be where the vehicle is kept. And insurers require the address of where a vehicle is kept as this forms a component of their algorithm. But your insurance address is where you actually live, not the RK address, isn't it?

Maybe we'll just stick to the above-the-parapet issues of the PCN!

hcandersen makes a valid point, but as long as all the correct information has been given to the insurer it's all good.

Got the notice to keeper finally

This is a similar case with a good hca appeal. Perhaps it might be used again:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1529349

Also the sign has a "from--to" which is confusing, does it cover the day of the contravention?

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 - 14:33

Will have a look at that. Thanks.

The from/to had me thinking as well. After 2pm on the to date, with no sign of ongoing works or any activity in the area, one might reasonably assume it doesn’t cover the day.

Draft a representation and put it on here for review.