PCN 21r - Residents parking but suspended bay while I was away |
PCN 21r - Residents parking but suspended bay while I was away |
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 16:01
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Hi,
This morning I came back to my flat in London having been away for the week to find 3 PCN on the front of my car. The car was parked in my usual spot outside my flat as I have a residents parking permit. Initially I thought the warden had made a mistake until I reviewed the evidence online - seems some works had been undertaken on my road and my car was parked in a suspended area. When I parked the car there late on Monday evening the notice may have been there but it certainly wasn't visible to me and as a resident I don't tend to go looking around for signs every time I park my car. It looks like it is attached to a lamppost further down the road so it would be highly unlikely that I would notice it in the dark. I have drafted a response but I would love some advice before I contest the charges: To whom it may concern, I returned to my vehicle on Saturday 13th at 9:00am having been away since the evening of Monday 8th to find 3 parking penalty notices on the window. My vehicle XXXXXXX was parked in a residents bay, I am a registered permit holder and my reference number is XXXXXXX. I have reviewed the evidence online and can see that a parking suspension notice has gone up since I have been away. Firstly I have been out of London visiting my mother, this is evidenced by 3 tickets being issued and none of them being removed until my return. Secondly, had the notice been there, it would have been very hard for me to see it in the dark as it was attached to a lamppost further up the street from where I park facing into the road. As a resident who always parks here I tend not make a thorough check of the area every time I park and I was not made aware of the intended works by other means. I always park here and therefore had no concerns about leaving my car there for the week. I am therefore contesting this ticket on the grounds that I was legitimately parked in a residents bay and the restrictions were put in place in my absence. Further to this the evidence suggests that when the notice was put up it was further down the street than my flat so I would have had no way of seeing it in the dark had it been there on the evening of the 8th. At the time I saw no evidence of anything to prevent me from parking in my usual space. Kind Regards, X I would love some help with this case as otherwise I'm staring down the barrel of £195 in fines - not something I am particularly happy about! Also if there is anything on the pictures that I need to amend please let me know. Many thanks in advance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 16:01
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 16:13
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
They should have a log of which cars were in the bay when the sign went up. That they didn't tow yours is probably good news although they can also relocate if in the way.
As the suspension is 24hrs the second/third PCNs can be challenged as a continuous contravention. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 16:14 |
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 16:33
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the sign was there when I parked - it is likely that it was as I cant imagine them putting it up on the morning that the suspension began.
That's interesting re continuous contravention but ideally all would be challenged on the basis that the sign wasnt clear enough to me as a resident and the fact that I was away for the week when the suspension took place. |
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 17:34
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
That's interesting re continuous contravention but ideally all would be challenged on the basis that the sign wasnt clear enough to me as a resident and the fact that I was away for the week when the suspension took place. Why do you think the sign is unclear? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 17:41
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
The sign is a bit misleading - I first read it as 8.00 to 16.00 daily.
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 17:48
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The sign is a bit misleading - I first read it as 8.00 to 16.00 daily. Trouble is the first PCN was issued at 9:20. The 2nd and 3rd PCNs should be cancelled as continuous contravention but It think the first one is going to be a bit tricky, though it makes sense to challenge them on the suspension log and ask when the sign was put up. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 19:06
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate the advice.
QUOTE Why do you think the sign is unclear? I believe the notice is unclear for me as it is located further up the street from where I park, also it faces out towards the road so from the drivers side at night it would be hard to spot. This really was my one opportunity to see it. Going forward, as I have 3 of these to respond to, would it be worth writing a letter or responding to each individually online? And should I mention the continuous contravention yet or only if my initial argument fails? |
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 19:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Post a link to the location on google street view so we can check the location. In short, if the sign was placed in the bay where you were parked, it was your responsibility to check it. The sign seems broadly adequate to me, although the times could have been clearer.
Going forward, as I have 3 of these to respond to, would it be worth writing a letter or responding to each individually online? And should I mention the continuous contravention yet or only if my initial argument fails? I would write a single challenge for the whole lot. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 23:25
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
+1
The 3rd PCN is timed at 0747 and IMO the daily restriction starts at 0800 according to the sign. Keep that in mind. Mick |
|
|
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 08:43
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
The 3rd PCN is timed at 0747 and IMO the daily restriction starts at 0800 according to the sign. That's what I thought at first glance but I'm sure the restriction ran from 8 am on the first day to 4 pm on the final day, despite the rather misleading wording. In which case the continuous contravention applies. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 09:48
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,155 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, we need all info.
Do not obscure road names or reasons for suspension. I cannot make out what was happening from the photos but utilities work normally requires excavation and is often planned. When planned, the authority would have significant prior notice and therefore no reason to not follow their own policies as regards advance notice. And this policy is? You know, you're a permit holder and your Ts and Cs deal with this. Let's have the full picture. |
|
|
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 15:22
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
OP, we need all info. Do not obscure road names or reasons for suspension. I cannot make out what was happening from the photos but utilities work normally requires excavation and is often planned. When planned, the authority would have significant prior notice and therefore no reason to not follow their own policies as regards advance notice. And this policy is? You know, you're a permit holder and your Ts and Cs deal with this. Let's have the full picture. Here is the unedited notice: And this is what I found in the Ts&Cs: 'Suspensions - From time to time it may be necessary to suspend a parking bay, this is normally due to road works being carried out by the utility companies, such as gas or electricity. During the period for which the bay is suspended, parking is not permitted in the bay. Even if a valid permit is displayed / exists a PCN will still be issued and the vehicle may be towed away. It is the permit holder's responsibility to ensure that the bay in which their vehicle is parked is not suspended during the time their vehicle is there' Also here is a pic I took this morning of where my car was parked and the post where the notice was attached: It is one continuous bay and it certainly wouldn't have been easy for me to see the notice at night from the angle of the driver's seat. I hope that gives you guys a bit more information - I really appreciate all the advice so far. Many thanks! This post has been edited by WillyBarno: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 15:24 |
|
|
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 16:41
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,155 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Let's focus.
Why have you deleted the ref no? As I understand it: Your photo is timed/dated? If so, it could be gold dust. In a parking place partly suspended and where more than a single traffic sign is placed then the traffic signs closest to the limits of the suspended area must carry the suspension sign. Assuming your photo shows that on the day/time it was taken it was not marked as required. So according to you: At *** hours on 8 Apr at least one of the required signs was not placed, see photo enclosed. The restriction came into effect less than 24 hours later. It is for the authority to explain, not you. And let's get away from you being in holiday, this issue is about what the council did after you parked. PCN 1 - no obvious excuse for the council as less than 24 hours' notice was given; PCNs 2 and 3, continuous contravention. This is not a job lot of PCNs, it's 3 separate PCNs, 2 of which have similar grounds of representation. I parked my car at |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 07:41
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Thank you for your reply. Just to be clear the photo was taken after the event to illustrate where the notice was placed. It may have been there on the night of the 8th but it would have been very hard for me to spot from this position.
This post has been edited by WillyBarno: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 07:41 |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 08:55
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,155 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OK.
So, still going back to the objective facts: where is the shared bay in which you were parked? According to GSV, it doesn't exist. What does GSV show? A parking place which extends from o/s 24 to o/s 26. This is terminated by a discontinuous transverse white line within the bay. A contiguous (they share the same boundary) parking place which extends from this point to almost the junction with Combermere Road. In the former, there is a single traffic sign situated o/s no. 25. This states: P, permit holders or pay ay machine. It is a shared use bay. It carries an arrow pointing in the direction of the P&D machine. Is this correct? For the latter, much longer, bay the first sign in this direction is situated outside the flank wall of 29/30. It states: P, permit holders only. It also carries an arrow for no apparent purpose (unless GSV is a bit wonky and doesn't show the full sign, perhaps this is a shared use sign in which case the arrow would apply to show the direction of the machine which is consistent with the arrow in the first bay. There is another sign o/s the flank wall of 34/35. Again permit holders only, but no arrow. Curiouser and curiouser. Would you please confirm and photograph: The first sign in the first bay, both close-up and wider to show its location and the transverse line within the bay. The second sign. Whether there is a transverse line within the longer bay between no.25 and the second sign. What the council's photos appear to show is a suspension notice on a post carrying an unseen traffic sign. The notice refers to a 'shared use' bay and is sited under a sign saying permit holders only. Your photos will advance our understanding. |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 11:14
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
I really appreciate you taking the time to help with this. I am at work at the moment but will endeavor to get the photos taken when I'm back this evening.
In the meantime this is the GSV of the road outside my flat: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fQtHQ My car was parked outside number 27 (white building with green door) just after the discontinuous white line. |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 20:05
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Would you please confirm and photograph: The first sign in the first bay, both close-up and wider to show its location and the transverse line within the bay. The second sign. Whether there is a transverse line within the longer bay between no.25 and the second sign. What the council's photos appear to show is a suspension notice on a post carrying an unseen traffic sign. The notice refers to a 'shared use' bay and is sited under a sign saying permit holders only. Your photos will advance our understanding. First sign in the first bay: Second sign: The divide between the shared use bay and the permit holder's bay: In the photos the red X refers to where I was parked at the time. I think I see where you are going with this - their sign refers to a 'shared use bay' between 26 and 31, which isn't correct. The bay between 26 and 31 is for permit holders only. Is this enough of an error to challenge the first ticket on more than just the placement of the notice? The second and third ticket should hopefully be invalid because of continuous contravention. Once again I really appreciate all your help with this matter. This post has been edited by WillyBarno: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 20:08 |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 07:30
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 28 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,097 |
Would love to know if anyone has any further thoughts on this before I finalise my argument - also I assume it would be better to write to them direct rather than using the rather limited options on the web form? Closest I could find on their list of reasons was 'procedural impropriety'.
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 08:04
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,014 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Would love to know if anyone has any further thoughts on this before I finalise my argument - also I assume it would be better to write to them direct rather than using the rather limited options on the web form? Closest I could find on their list of reasons was 'procedural impropriety'. And also:- "the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case" |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 09:03
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,155 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The first point is obvious: it is not a shared use bay!
So, I parked in what I know to be a permit holders only bay which adjoins a shared use bay. When I returned to my car I found 3 PCNs alleging that I was parked in a suspended bay. I have now viewed the authority's photos which absolutely clearly show a parking suspension notice which states 'Place Shared Use Bay'. I do not know the relevance of this to the alleged contravention because my car was not parked within a shared use bay and therefore the suspension as conveyed by the sign could not have occurred. I notice further down the sign, and therefore subject to context established by 'Place Shared Use Bay', the property numbers 26-31. But these numbers do not front the shared use bay which runs from24-26 and is terminated by a transverse line within the parking place. Clearly, whoever drafted the sign made an error, but whether the wrong description i.e. permit holders only or shared use, or wrong numbers remains a mystery. What is clear, however, is that the authority cannot penalise a motorist for the authority's error and all PCNs mist be cancelled. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 01:31 |