PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CEO placing parking restriction sign in place before giving ticket, Any advice very welcome!
jo12345
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:29
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



Hi all,

My car was parked in a resident's parking bay as normal, when it was given a ticket and towed due to a yellow triangular "Suspended Bay" sign that was apparently there when I parked.

I didn't see the sign when I parked, and the photographic evidence provided by the CEO issuing the ticket include timestamped photos (@11.26am) showing the triangular sign with the information facing away from the road (and the car), and then 1 minute later @ 11.27am (via the timestamp) more photos with the sign facing towards the car.

It seems clear to me that at the very least the CEO started taking photos before realising the sign wasn't visible, before turning the sign around for the remainder of the photos.

I have contested this with the council, who have rejected my appeal saying that "the position of the suspension sign was correctly placed". I am questioning firstly whether the sign was even there, but also even if it was there as photographed do I still have a case to contest this at the tribunals? The Process Officer at the council who rejected my appeal says the signs were adequate but surely the CEO's actions at the time to move the sign in order to gather evidence trumps this?

Two two possible scenarios are:
1. The sign wasn't there, it was put up and photos taken, then moved and more photos taken.
2. The sign was there and I didn't notice it, photos were taken, sign moved, more photos taken.

I have found a passage in the govt's Traffic Signs Manual that states that "On-street parking and loading signs are normally erected parallel to the kerb, facing the carriageway." which this one wasn't, though I'm not sure if this is enough to contest?

Thanks for any help! Two of the photos taken by the CEO are attached, I can upload more if needed.

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Fluffykins
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,593



Wrong forum. Ask a mod to move this to "Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
makara
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:36
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,905
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904



Possible to upload the Ticket and / or Notice of Rejection?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



This needs moving to the council tickets forum
Use the "Report" button

Was this the informal appeal of the windscreen ticket or the formal appeal of the Notice to Owner ?
Some councils automatically reject all informal appeals because the motorist will normally pay the discount

The council's own photographs show that the CEO moved the sign
The council might not want to explain this to an adjudicator

The only weakness with your case that I can see is that "something" was clearly attached to the lamp-post but you didn't check what it said
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo12345
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:53
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



QUOTE (makara @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:36) *
Possible to upload the Ticket and / or Notice of Rejection?


I don't have the ticket to hand, but the Notice of Rejection is attached.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 17:20
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



So they admit that the CEO turned the sign leaving the issue whether you should have seen it and inspected it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo12345
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 17:23
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 17:20) *
So they admit that the CEO turned the sign leaving the issue whether you should have seen it and inspected it


Yeah, they admit that the CEO did it, but say it doesn't matter because the sign was there.

My argument is if the sign was sufficient, the CEO shouldn't have needed to turn the sign around.

Along with the fact that if the CEO actively moved the sign between photos, he also could have easily moved it before the photos (e.g. if it had slid down the lamp post or fallen off out of view, it was just a thin plastic sign)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:00
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Have you hit report yet?
This must be moved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo12345
post Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 22:48
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:00) *
Have you hit report yet?
This must be moved.


I have yeah
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo12345
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:04
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 16:40) *
This needs moving to the council tickets forum
Use the "Report" button

Was this the informal appeal of the windscreen ticket or the formal appeal of the Notice to Owner ?
Some councils automatically reject all informal appeals because the motorist will normally pay the discount

The council's own photographs show that the CEO moved the sign
The council might not want to explain this to an adjudicator

The only weakness with your case that I can see is that "something" was clearly attached to the lamp-post but you didn't check what it said



It was the council "PCN objections" appeal - not sure if that's the informal one or formal.. Their rejection was a "formal rejection"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:33
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42) *
Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.



Yes, although there is one in post #1 with the earlier time on. But this looks like a stitch up - the council seems to have dug its own grave on this one.

OP - what council is this? It's a no brainer to take it to adjudication. Any more paperwork?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:02
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Register the appeal with LT...that is a formal NOR.

Grounds of Contravention did not Occur due to inadequate signage.

Details can be filled in but do not miss deadline to register the appeal.
And give us the date of the NOR please and words of your challenge to the council?

There is clear evidence that the Suspension sign was moved.
There is clear evidence that it was facing the wrong way (at least) and as such would not be readily visible and easily dismissed as a poster someone had stuck up....come to the local rave or suchlike.
From the facts that it was moved, there can only be a suspicion that it may not have even been at a suitable level when you parked.




QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42) *
Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.

Mick


Photos will be from removal truck.
We haven't seen paperwork but I suspect will coincide with those photos.
Earlier ones must be in council evidence pack or adjudicator likely to draw own conclusions on adequacy of sign, especially when the questions are asked
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:13
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:33) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42) *
Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.



Yes, although there is one in post #1 with the earlier time on. But this looks like a stitch up - the council seems to have dug its own grave on this one.

OP - what council is this? It's a no brainer to take it to adjudication. Any more paperwork?


Looks like Camden, from nearby signs. So that'll be NSL doing the enforcement with their (alleged) Targets of 9 PCNs per CEO, per shift
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo12345
post Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 13:08
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,685



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:02) *
Register the appeal with LT...that is a formal NOR.

Grounds of Contravention did not Occur due to inadequate signage.

Details can be filled in but do not miss deadline to register the appeal.
And give us the date of the NOR please and words of your challenge to the council?

There is clear evidence that the Suspension sign was moved.
There is clear evidence that it was facing the wrong way (at least) and as such would not be readily visible and easily dismissed as a poster someone had stuck up....come to the local rave or suchlike.
From the facts that it was moved, there can only be a suspicion that it may not have even been at a suitable level when you parked.




QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42) *
Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.

Mick


Photos will be from removal truck.
We haven't seen paperwork but I suspect will coincide with those photos.
Earlier ones must be in council evidence pack or adjudicator likely to draw own conclusions on adequacy of sign, especially when the questions are asked



Yep photos taken when vehicle was removed @ c.14:40, but original photos when ticket issued @ 11:26.

Thanks a lot, I will put through the appeal tomorrow, the 28 day deadline takes me up to next Monday.

QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:13) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:33) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 18:42) *
Timings on the photos very suspect if the contravention was 11.27 and the signs photo 14.42.



Yes, although there is one in post #1 with the earlier time on. But this looks like a stitch up - the council seems to have dug its own grave on this one.

OP - what council is this? It's a no brainer to take it to adjudication. Any more paperwork?


Looks like Camden, from nearby signs. So that'll be NSL doing the enforcement with their (alleged) Targets of 9 PCNs per CEO, per shift


Yep Camden, do you have a source for the 9 PCNs per shift alleged target by any chance?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:27
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here