Parking ticket - signage not visible from car, Signage at furthest end of cul de sac! Options

[HNorm]

Hi,

I just parked my car in a parking bay in a cul de sac. I looked around and there was no signage whatsoever, so I just left it there. When I returned I had a £55/£110 ticket!

The road was a cul de sac and I had pulled into the first available part of the long parking bay nearest to the entrance to the cul de sac. When I walked right to the other end of the long bay, there was a sign as far as it was possible to go from the entrance to the cul de sac, but still just about still in the parking bay, saying you can't park there.

The sign was in no way visible from my car and was right at the wrong end of the cul de sac, as far from the entrance that it was possible to be. Can I appeal this?

Many thanks!

[Advertisement]

[HNorm]

Thanks so much for getting back! Does that mean failure to consider the points raised in my appeal? To me, as long as the 15m from the beginning of the box rule applies - and the fact that he he failed to address that would suggest it does - then it seems pretty clear that I am in the right here. Or am I missing something?

So I take it I'm at squeaky bum time. Either give in like this (bluffing?) idiot wants me to and pay the £55. Or wait 28 days for the Notification To Owner and appeal formally, risking having to pay the full £110!

[PASTMYBEST]

Thanks so much for getting back! Does that mean failure to consider the points raised in my appeal? To me, as long as the 15m from the beginning of the box rule applies - and the fact that he he failed to address that would suggest it does - then it seems pretty clear that I am in the right here. Or am I missing something?

So I take it I'm at squeaky bum time. Either give in like this (bluffing?) idiot wants me to and pay the £55. Or wait 28 days for the Notification To Owner and appeal formally, risking having to pay the full £110!

Yep, but you have a strong case, the signage is poor. Pay 355 now or take a chance. Save the cost of a cup of coffee a week between now and when you would have to pay if you lost (about 3 to 4 months) and you will easily save the difference. and if as is likely you win you can treat yourself


edit the 355 should be £55

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:43

[cp8759]

Thanks so much for getting back! Does that mean failure to consider the points raised in my appeal? To me, as long as the 15m from the beginning of the box rule applies - and the fact that he he failed to address that would suggest it does - then it seems pretty clear that I am in the right here. Or am I missing something?

So I take it I'm at squeaky bum time. Either give in like this (bluffing?) idiot wants me to and pay the £55. Or wait 28 days for the Notification To Owner and appeal formally, risking having to pay the full £110!

Remember in almost all cases if they reject the formal representations, they'll still re-offer the £55 option in the hope that you pay rather than taking the case to the tribunal, so in practice you have nothing to lose.

[HNorm]

Hi, I have put together the below appeal. I have basically reiterated the original points, and also pointed out the flimsiness of their response while doing so, pointing out that it does not address my original appeal. Any feedback welcome. Thanks!

///


I would like to once again challenge this PCN, as your representative failed to address several of the points that I made in my original correspondence.
To reiterate, I parked approximately three car lengths into the parking place which runs continuously for a distance of approximately 50 plus metres into the cul de sac. I was parked outside no 4, right by the entrance to the cul de sac. I looked for a traffic sign in the vicinity, but did not see one. I therefore reasonably assumed that no parking restrictions applied.

I repeat: paragraph 7.50 of the traffic signs manual chapter 3 says that a sign should be placed no more than 15 metres from the start of the bay and then at no more than 30 metre intervals. This is not the case in this instance. I would now refer you to The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulation 18. It cannot be said that the signage in situ at this location complies. Therefore, a contravention did not occur and I believe that this PCN should be cancelled. I was behaving honestly, but no signage was visible.
Your representative's response that "there is a sign where you parked..." does not address my point that the solitary traffic sign is actually at the furthest extent from the other end of the parking place and some 40 metres approximately from my car, right at the opposite end of the cul de sac to the entrance. So, not "where I parked" or even visible from there, and in contravention of the above.
He also says that "the presence of white parking bay and parking signage is sufficient to warn the motorist". As already discussed, the signage was not visible from where I parked my car (and in contravention of the above specifications). The white parking bay alone was not enough to indicate this either, as there are plenty of places where I park nearby that have the same lines and no visible sign that are legal to park in, which made me believe that this space was also legal to park in.

Please see, as an example, the parking directly opposite the Railway Bell pub located at 14 CAWNPORE STREET, NORWOOD, LONDON, SE19 1PF, which is identical to the parking space I parked in and is legal.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4225468,-...6384!8i8192
I parked believing that I was doing so legally. However, the signage was not visble and does not comply with the law, which your representative has failed to address. Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled.

[cp8759]

If you've received a Notice to Owner post it up, you never know there may be errors.

[HNorm]

Thanks!

[cp8759]

I can't read all the pages as the resolution is too low, try putting a higher res version on imgur.com

Your challenges seems fine but don't include a link, as there is no guarantee they will look at it, you would need to include a screenshot instead.

[HNorm]

Thanks - I've just put what I have above on paper and added a photo I took at the address above too. Time to post it I guess!

[cp8759]

Thanks - I've just put what I have above on paper and added a photo I took at the address above too. Time to post it I guess!

I would still like to see page 2 of the NtO in a resolution that we can actually read, just in case they've made any mistakes.

[HNorm]

I got rejected again but am just going to appeal again for a third time!

Will upload the latest letter. Thanks!

This post has been edited by HNorm: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 - 11:31

[HNorm]

Here is the letter. They have rejected again, and again they haven't really engaged with the signage being non-compliant. Again, they have just vaguely said 'it does comply'. Ao I am just going to reiterate that (again) in my next appeal.


Any advice great appreciated - thanks!

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[cp8759]

So now you have two grounds of appeal, the signage issue (the alleged contravention did not occur), plus failure to consider (procedural impropriety). The council has a duty to properly consider your representations, and if your representations are rejected, they should explain why. Just saying the signage is compliant cannot suffice IMO.

[hcandersen]

...and writing '(as amended)' 😀

[HNorm]

Brilliant - thanks for your help! So I'm basically going to send in the same appeal for the third time, reiterating the same points about the signage being unclear. And then also add that they have twice failed to explain their reasons correctly for rejecting the above, and ask them to elaborate and explain specifically why the signage does comply. Any more thoughts appreciated!

[PASTMYBEST]

Brilliant - thanks for your help! So I'm basically going to send in the same appeal for the third time, reiterating the same points about the signage being unclear. And then also add that they have twice failed to explain their reasons correctly for rejecting the above, and ask them to elaborate and explain specifically why the signage does comply. Any more thoughts appreciated!

we can help best if you post here before sending to the tribunal

[cp8759]

Brilliant - thanks for your help! So I'm basically going to send in the same appeal for the third time, reiterating the same points about the signage being unclear. And then also add that they have twice failed to explain their reasons correctly for rejecting the above, and ask them to elaborate and explain specifically why the signage does comply. Any more thoughts appreciated!

Post your appeal here before submitting it. We have seen countless cases being lost because people insist on going it alone. Unfortunately once an appeal is lost, for us to say "oh you should have said this and you should have reworded that" won't help as it'll be too late by then.

[HNorm]

I would like to once again challenge this PCN, as your representative failed to address several of the points that I made in my original correspondence.

To reiterate, I parked approximately three car lengths into the parking place which runs continuously for a distance of approximately 50 plus metres into the cul de sac. I was parked outside no 4, right by the entrance to the cul de sac. I looked for a traffic sign in the vicinity, but did not see one. I therefore reasonably assumed that no parking restrictions applied.

I repeat: paragraph 7.50 of the traffic signs manual chapter 3 says that a sign should be placed no more than 15 metres from the start of the bay and then at no more than 30 metre intervals. This is not the case in this instance. I would now refer you to The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulation 18. It cannot be said that the signage in situ at this location complies. Therefore, a contravention did not occur and I believe that this PCN should be cancelled. I was behaving honestly, but no signage was visible.

Your representative's response that "there is a sign where you parked..." does not address my point that the solitary traffic sign is actually at the furthest extent from the other end of the parking place and some 40 metres approximately from my car, right at the opposite end of the cul de sac to the entrance. So, not "where I parked" or even visible from there, and in contravention of the above. Therefore, my second grounds for appeal is that my appeal has not been considered, as I have not received a response to the above point explaining how the signage coomplies, it just says that there is a sign present (which I am fully aware of - but it is not in the correct place).

He also says that "the presence of white parking bay and parking signage is sufficient to warn the motorist". As already discussed, the signage was not visible from where I parked my car (and in contravention of the above specifications). The white parking bay alone was not enough to indicate this either, as there are plenty of places where I park nearby that have the same lines and no visible sign that are legal to park in, which made me believe that this space was also legal to park in.

Please see, as an example, the parking directly opposite the Railway Bell pub located at 14 CAWNPORE STREET, NORWOOD, LONDON, SE19 1PF, which is identical to the parking space I parked in and is legal.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4225468,-...6384!8i8192

I parked believing that I was doing so legally. However, the signage was not visible and does not comply with the law, which your representative has failed to address, so my appeal has also not been properly considered. Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled.

[cp8759]

You misunderstand: the council is no longer the entity you're addressing, you are making an appeal to the independent tribunal, so you need to frame the wording accordingly. So there's nothing to reiterate, as the tribunal will have never seen your case before (thought they will have a copy of your representations). You need to persuade the tribunal that the council's decision is wrong.

[hcandersen]

I got rejected again but am just going to appeal again for a third time!

But not as you think.

You must register your appeal with the adj in the first instance and no later than 28 days begnning on the day you received their NOR.

In this you give your skeleton grounds of argument etc. The adj would then contact you with details of the procedure, including where and when to submit your appeal in full.

You are not there yet, so your draft is premature.

IMO, your grounds are:
Contravention did not occur; and
Procedural impropriety.

As regards the latter, it is self-evident from the NOR that the officer was applying the wrong legal tests and now regrets writing 'I can also advise you that there are signs.....indicating that your road falls ŵithin a CPZ..'

Which has nothing to do with the matter.

In your appeal, IMO you start with what you did and why, not the council.

On *** I parked in a location which I knew was a parking place. I made what I considered at the time to be a reasonable search for a traffic sign but saw none. I walked at least over half way to the end of the parking place (its end was clear as the road was a cul-de-sac).

Get it front and centre, no mucking about. The adj would then look at whether there was a sign and whether in the circumstances it complied with the council's duties under LATOR. Frankly, I don't think he'd get to the PI grounds.

But for now, register your appeal.

[HNorm]

Aaaaaargh! Just realised I noted the wrong date a few weeks ago and have gone over 28 days. Unbelievable after sending two in on time already and getting this far!

Thanks for your help though. I will take this on board and post it this afternoon regardless.

I would like to challenge this PCN on two grounds please: Contravention Did Not Occur and Procedural Impropriety.

Contravention Did Not Occur:
I parked approximately three car lengths into the parking place which runs continuously for a distance of approximately 50 plus metres into the cul de sac. I was parked outside no 4, right by the entrance to the cul de sac. I looked for a traffic sign in the vicinity, but did not see one. I therefore reasonably assumed that no parking restrictions applied.

Paragraph 7.50 of the traffic signs manual chapter 3 says that a sign should be placed no more than 15 metres from the start of the bay and then at no more than 30 metre intervals. This is not the case in this instance. I would now refer you to The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulation 18. It cannot be said that the signage in situ at this location complies. Therefore, a contravention did not occur and I believe that this PCN should be cancelled. I was behaving honestly, but no signage was visible.

Procedural Impropriety:
The response that I received saying "there is a sign where you parked..." does not address my point that the solitary traffic sign is actually at the furthest extent from the other end of the parking place and some 40 metres approximately from my car, right at the opposite end of the cul de sac to the entrance. So, not "where I parked" or even visible from there, and in contravention of the above.
They also says thated "the presence of white parking bay and parking signage is sufficient to warn the motorist". As already discussed, the signage was not visible from where I parked my car (and in contravention of the above specifications). The white parking bay alone was not enough to indicate this either, as there are plenty of places where I park nearby that have the same lines and no visible sign that are legal to park in, which made me believe that this space was also legal to park in.

Please see, as an example, the parking directly opposite the Railway Bell pub located at 14 CAWNPORE STREET, NORWOOD, LONDON, SE19 1PF, which is identical to the parking space I parked in and is legal.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4225468,-...6384!8i8192
I parked believing that I was doing so legally. However, the signage was not visbile and does not comply with the law (Contravention Did Not Occur) , which their representative has failed to address (Procedural Impropriety). Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled.