PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ticket in residential area, Kensington and Chelsea
zee aze
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
From: london
Member No.: 73,201



Dear Sir/Madam,

I parked my car on Hollywood Road in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea at 15:15, a ticket was issued to me on the grounds of ‘12U parked in a residents without a valid permit’ at 1531.

I assumed this area was safe to park because there was a pay and display sign right near my car which I promptly did by phoning the number and parked for an hour.

However, according to the warden this is an area which is fully resident until 10pm.

Below are the ticket and the pics which the warden took.






Below are the pics that i took...






This post has been edited by zee aze: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:49


--------------------
You need to fight like a cornered tiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 20:18
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,765
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Did you not notice the double-dashed lines behind the last car in the bay ? This means different restrictions each side, and where you parked, it was permit holders only for part of the day. YOU always need to check bay markings and signs very carefully especially in London.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 23:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



There's a clear case to be made that the PCN wording is duplicitous. As zee aze had actually made payment, this is a clear example of the wording being prejudicious.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zee aze
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 11:10
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
From: london
Member No.: 73,201



Hi Guys,

Have drafted up a potential reply that will be sent off soon.

Any advice on it would be great.

----------------

ticket NO:



Dear Sir/Madam,

As per the ticket issued on 01/06/19, I am challenging this ticket for the following reasons.

My car was parked on Hollywood Road where the signage was not clear. I purchased parking as per the sign at the top of Hollywood Road on the junction with Fulham Road where I paid for the hour. However, a ticket was issued stating that I had parked in a residents bay. The pictures taken by the warden, show there were no signs by my car that this was a residential parking area.

The warden took a close up of a sign which shows that this is a residential parking area but when I looked in the area this sign could not be seen. However, the paid parking was clearly sign posted.

Thanks


--------------------
You need to fight like a cornered tiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 11:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,667
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (zee aze @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 12:10) *
The warden took a close up of a sign which shows that this is a residential parking area but when I looked in the area this sign could not be seen. However, the paid parking was clearly sign posted.


you need to make it clear that one set of signs, which you relied on, was mounted clearly on a post. The residential sign was low down on railings (although right by your car and you parked with the driver's side right by it...).

I don't think there's much chance here but worth asking to see if they make a mistake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 11:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,094
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



IMO you can win on the signs an arrow pointing one way for pay and display or by phone and another for car club permits and a hidden residents bay. And +1 to CPs point though not till formal reps


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zee aze
post Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 20:21
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
From: london
Member No.: 73,201



Re: Updated response, would this be ok to send?

------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,

As per the ticket issued on 01/06/19, I am challenging this ticket for the following reasons.

My car was parked on Hollywood Road where the signage was clearly mounted stating that parking was available at this time between Monday to Saturday 8.30am to 630pm providing I paid the necessary fee which I did, quoting location 88760.

However, a ticket was issued stating that I had parked in a residents bay. The warden took a close up of a sign but when I looked in the area this sign could not be seen clearly. However, the paid parking was clearly signposted along with the car club. (Picture attached)

The contravention on the ticket also states that I have parked in a ‘zone without a valid virtual permit...... or pay and display’ I clearly paid for this ticket (picture attached)

I look forward to your reply.

Many Thanks


--------------------
You need to fight like a cornered tiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 22:05
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think this needs to be a bit simpler and to the point, this is what I would send:

------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

As per the penalty charge notice issued on 01/06/19, I am challenging the penalty charge for the following reasons.

My car was parked on Hollywood Road where the signage was clearly mounted stating that parking was available at this time between Monday to Saturday 8.30am to 630pm providing I paid the necessary fee which I did, quoting location 88760.

However, a PCN was issued stating that I had parked in a residents bay, or in a shared used bay, or a zone, without any of a virtual permit, or a physical permit, or a voucher, or a pay and display ticket, or without payment. It is impossible to determine from the PCN exactly what it is that is alleged but in any event I had paid for parking based on the clearly signposted instructions. (Picture attached)

In light of this I ask that the penalty charge be cancelled.

Many Thanks



--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zee aze
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 21:10
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
From: london
Member No.: 73,201



the reply from the council... looks like they will hardball on this one...






--------------------
You need to fight like a cornered tiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 22:30
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,765
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



It now depends on whether you want to play hardball as well, and take them to London Tribunals. Of course this means their discount offer will be lost. The appeal would focus on the lack of prominence of the 'resident parking only' notice compared to the one for P&D thus being misleading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 09:11
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 384
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



I don't think I rate your chances of success at adjudication - the bay markings are quite clear, even if the sign is not in the obvious place (but its still there).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 15:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 23:30) *
It now depends on whether you want to play hardball as well, and take them to London Tribunals. Of course this means their discount offer will be lost. The appeal would focus on the lack of prominence of the 'resident parking only' notice compared to the one for P&D thus being misleading.

We're still at the informal stage, so we need to wait for the Notice to Owner first and there's another chance there for the council to cancel or mess up. They now say the PCN was issued for being parked in a residents' bay, but the PCN does not say that, so the duplicity argument is clearly made out. We then have the issues around the signage, plus the council has considered the wrong regulations (see Eyong Besong v Transport for London (2180132152, 03 May 2018)).

It's not a sure win, but personally I would wait for the Notice to Owner.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zee aze
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 11:40
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
From: london
Member No.: 73,201



ok guys, so they have now come back to me with the nto..

what can I now expect?



--------------------
You need to fight like a cornered tiger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 14:53
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 503
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Although the "resident time plate to the rear of your vehicle on the railings" referred to in the rejection letter was claimed to be in accordance with TSRGD, I think it is not as prescribed without the inclusion of an arrow pointing to the left in the case as here, where it is a sign indicating a change in a parking restriction* (Regulation 17).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4/made

* In which case it would be more appropriately mounted on a post.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 15:06


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 16:50
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,142
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It doesn't indicate a 'change' in restriction, just the restriction itself.

It's fine as a sign, it's just not placed correctly.

OP, you have to EXPLAIN how you walked past this sign to the inapplicable further sign. I do not think this would be too onerous:

1. Every other traffic sign in this section of the road and every sign within the resident's only area is placed on a post situated on the kerb. This is a fact. Your argument would that this is because it is the correct and sensible place to put signs because they're visible, very difficult to obstruct and where a motorist expects to see them.

2. The sign upon which the authority rely is situated at knee height on railings at the rear of the footway, totally out of keeping with every other sign in the vicinity.

3. You walked past but did not notice this sign. You can only explain this because it would be easy for it to be obscured by any pedestrian, please note that serendipitously GSV shows a man pushing a buggy at this location. At this point you would draw an important fact to the authority's notice. The plinths supporting the door pillars protrude into the footway by 6 inches or more such that the railings immediately adjacent are obscured. This is where the sign is located. This means that when approaching from the left the sign is obscured until one has reached the plinth, it then falls into the lap of the parking Gods whether some other factor such as someone pushing a buggy would intervene to obscure the sign until it had been passed at which point if not before a motorist's attention and eye would be caught by the prominent, but inapplicable, post-mounted sign further ahead.

Would be the context I would set out - as much for the adjudicator subsequently as the authority now.

And if the obscured sign wasn't misleading enough, the meaning of the grounds stated in the PCN is equally confusing. It is impossible on reading the contravention description on its own to have any idea what precise contravention has been alleged, thereby putting the motorist at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to making representations. On returning to one's car and finding a PCN the normal response would be to read it to determine what was alleged. In this case the PCN informed me that, among other matters, I could have failed to pay the parking charge. But I knew that I had and that I had proof, therefore I immediately went to the sign to re-check the times. Having satisfied myself on this point, I put this down to an error and had no concerns whether the PCN would be cancelled. Only when I received the authority's reply did this state clearly the reason 'the vehicle was parked in a resident's parking place'. The photos included were of course of the sign I did not see, but what really annoyed me and which I think would allow me to make representations on the grounds of procedural impropriety is that, after some research, I have discovered that the body which concocted this almost impenetrable description have actually given authorities suffixes or supplementary descriptions to aid understanding, in this case the following:
r = residents’ bay
s = shared use bay
t = voucher/P&D ticket used in permit bay u = mobile phone parking
w = wrong parking zone
y = obscured/illegible permit
4 = virtual permit

I am at a loss to understand why the authority would specify in their written response 'resident's parking place' and yet not include this basic information at the time of issuing the PCN. Their failure has left me unable to present initial representations with full knowledge of what was alleged but only to do so at the NTO stage some 3 months after the event.

(Yes I know it's long-winded, but just claiming 'duplicity' is slightly too simplistic IMO).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 19:29
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,094
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 17:50) *
It doesn't indicate a 'change' in restriction, just the restriction itself.

It's fine as a sign, it's just not placed correctly.

OP, you have to EXPLAIN how you walked past this sign to the inapplicable further sign. I do not think this would be too onerous:

1. Every other traffic sign in this section of the road and every sign within the resident's only area is placed on a post situated on the kerb. This is a fact. Your argument would that this is because it is the correct and sensible place to put signs because they're visible, very difficult to obstruct and where a motorist expects to see them.

2. The sign upon which the authority rely is situated at knee height on railings at the rear of the footway, totally out of keeping with every other sign in the vicinity.

3. You walked past but did not notice this sign. You can only explain this because it would be easy for it to be obscured by any pedestrian, please note that serendipitously GSV shows a man pushing a buggy at this location. At this point you would draw an important fact to the authority's notice. The plinths supporting the door pillars protrude into the footway by 6 inches or more such that the railings immediately adjacent are obscured. This is where the sign is located. This means that when approaching from the left the sign is obscured until one has reached the plinth, it then falls into the lap of the parking Gods whether some other factor such as someone pushing a buggy would intervene to obscure the sign until it had been passed at which point if not before a motorist's attention and eye would be caught by the prominent, but inapplicable, post-mounted sign further ahead.

Would be the context I would set out - as much for the adjudicator subsequently as the authority now.

And if the obscured sign wasn't misleading enough, the meaning of the grounds stated in the PCN is equally confusing. It is impossible on reading the contravention description on its own to have any idea what precise contravention has been alleged, thereby putting the motorist at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to making representations. On returning to one's car and finding a PCN the normal response would be to read it to determine what was alleged. In this case the PCN informed me that, among other matters, I could have failed to pay the parking charge. But I knew that I had and that I had proof, therefore I immediately went to the sign to re-check the times. Having satisfied myself on this point, I put this down to an error and had no concerns whether the PCN would be cancelled. Only when I received the authority's reply did this state clearly the reason 'the vehicle was parked in a resident's parking place'. The photos included were of course of the sign I did not see, but what really annoyed me and which I think would allow me to make representations on the grounds of procedural impropriety is that, after some research, I have discovered that the body which concocted this almost impenetrable description have actually given authorities suffixes or supplementary descriptions to aid understanding, in this case the following:
r = residents’ bay
s = shared use bay
t = voucher/P&D ticket used in permit bay u = mobile phone parking
w = wrong parking zone
y = obscured/illegible permit
4 = virtual permit

I am at a loss to understand why the authority would specify in their written response 'resident's parking place' and yet not include this basic information at the time of issuing the PCN. Their failure has left me unable to present initial representations with full knowledge of what was alleged but only to do so at the NTO stage some 3 months after the event.

(Yes I know it's long-winded, but just claiming 'duplicity' is slightly too simplistic IMO).


IMO it is not long winded at all, I perhaps would not have gone into that much detail at reps stage, but they way HCA puts it the council are on the back foot


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 20:49
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 503
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 17:50) *
It doesn't indicate a 'change' in restriction, just the restriction itself.

What else is needed on the sign in question that would indicate a 'change' in restriction to non-pay bays from the pay bay adjacent?


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 21:27
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 20:29) *
IMO it is not long winded at all, I perhaps would not have gone into that much detail at reps stage, but they way HCA puts it the council are on the back foot

+1


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 09:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,142
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@Mr Meldrew,

Signs do not indicate changes in restrictions, that's the function of road markings. Best and recommended practice is to place a sign at the start of a new parking restriction, but without the required road markings it's simply a sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 11:19
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 503
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 10:01) *
@Mr Meldrew,

Signs do not indicate changes in restrictions, that's the function of road markings. Best and recommended practice is to place a sign at the start of a new parking restriction, but without the required road markings it's simply a sign.

That appears to me to clash with Regulation 17, and aren’t the road markings seen in the photos?


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Wednesday, 23rd October 2019 - 01:06
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.