21U suspended bay to Support Social Distancing City of Westminster Options

[ak135]

Driver parked in a pay and display bay (2nd bay by the entrance to the transport museum). Checked parking suspension yellow board (the bottom one), not realising that the top board was the relevant one. Paid for the parking session via app.

Upon return to the vehicle discovered a PCN attached to the windscreen.

When attempting to view photographic evidence of contravention, images do not appear/load on the City of Westminster website.

What will be the best grounds for appeal in this circumstances?

Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

I think there is grounds for confusion there as the second one is dated after the first one but it's for a different bay and reason.

Are you sure there are no council pics?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 - 21:19

[ak135]

I think there is grounds for confusion there as the second one is dated after the first one but it's for a different bay and reason.

Are you sure there are no council pics?

Thanks for the reply. Sure that they have taken photos, but when attempting to view them there seem to be a glitch. Maybe an issue with the server. Screenshot has been taken of the issue.

[PASTMYBEST]

It could be argued that the authorisation conditions have not been met so the sign is non compliant. The authorisation states information regardig the date or dates shall be displayed it does not provide for an open ended date . Then the lower one has an end date that has expired. That one should have been removed as it had not been the possibility for confusion is rife

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3897.pdf

[Mad Mick V]

Article 30 here deals with suspensions:-

http://westminstertransportationservices.c...mN1Y0dSbQ%3D%3D

I think the OP is on the back foot. However they cannot have an open ended suspension in this manner if the DfT authority for the sign limits them to 6 months.

Mick

[ak135]

Thanks to everyone's input and for the great points.

Today another attempt was made to view the Council photos, they do no work, certainly this must be some sort of a glitch from Council's side.

Driver will structure his appeal based on recommended points.

Thank you,

[PASTMYBEST]

Stop with the driver nonsense this is a council ticket and the owner is liable by default

[cp8759]

Post a draft representation and as PMB says, drop this "driver" malarkey.

[ak135]

My last dealing was with PE hence getting into the roll referring to the "driver"

Here is what I sent to the council including photos of the parking suspension boards.

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to appeal against this Penalty Charge NoticeXXXXXXX.
The alleged Contravention did not occur. The PCN XXXXXXXX alleges that the vehicle was in contravention of being parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space.

I would like to appeal this PCN on the grounds that authorization conditions have not been met so the sign of the suspension is not compliant. The authorisation states: the information regarding the date or dates shall be displayed. It does not provide for an open ended date which the top suspension sign has. Please check photography evidence and DfP pdf file.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3897.pdf


Second point is based on that there was a second suspension board (lower one) has an end date that has expired on the 2nd of September. This sign should have been removed and therefore caused confusion that there was no relevant suspension during my parking session.

The parking session has been paid for through an app please see attached evidence.

Lastly the photographic evidence of the contravention on the City of Westminster’s website do not work. Please see attached screenshots.

On the basis of the grounds set out in this challenge letter, please cancel this PCN forthwith. If we are unable to reach an agreement, then I understand I have the option of using the services of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service if required.

Sincerely yours,




This post has been edited by ak135: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 - 16:10

[cp8759]

I would have dropped the last sentence but what's done is done. The council will reject and then send a Notice to Owner, is the vehicle registered to you?

[ak135]

I would have dropped the last sentence but what's done is done. The council will reject and then send a Notice to Owner, is the vehicle registered to you?

Thank you for the reply. Yes the vehicle is registered to my name. May I ask why do you think that the council will reject my appeal?

[Gert]

TBH only the first point has any real traction. I would hope they ask their Suspension or Signs team for their "expert" opinion of whether an open ended suspension is permissible. If people here say its not, then if the LA reject, its your call to either pay £65 or push on and aim for post NTO cancellation or ETA appeal.

The fact there were 2 signs won't succeed. It is reasonable to expect a driver to spot and correctly interpret the two signs, one with details that are still in force and one that ended two days ago. It is not reasonable to expect an LA to have hoovered up each and every expired suspension sign the day after one ceases to apply.

The scope to go to ETA is not in play yet.

[cp8759]

I would have dropped the last sentence but what's done is done. The council will reject and then send a Notice to Owner, is the vehicle registered to you?

Thank you for the reply. Yes the vehicle is registered to my name. May I ask why do you think that the council will reject my appeal?

Because they reject virtually everything regardless of the merits.

[ak135]

I would have dropped the last sentence but what's done is done. The council will reject and then send a Notice to Owner, is the vehicle registered to you?

Thank you for the reply. Yes the vehicle is registered to my name. May I ask why do you think that the council will reject my appeal?

Because they reject virtually everything regardless of the merits.

Once I get a response I will upload it here.

[ak135]

I haven't heard back from the council since appealing. Today I have decided to call them and see what was happening. I was advised that the PCN is canceled and I received a copy of the written response bellow. I would like to thank each and everyone who participated and provided me with a valuable support

[PASTMYBEST]

As a sign not authorised by the TSRGD or by the SOS is not a road sign then it cannot convey a requirement so the bay sign is in force not their scrap paper, They really should read the regs they try to enforce

[Mad Mick V]

OP ----very well done.

I thought we had crushed this TRO is paramount bullsh*t out of sight ages ago but the same phrases keep recurring. Yes Westminster a traffic sign is required under Sects 64-66 of the RTRA to enforce a suspension and you really do require DfT approval to get one.

Whoever floated the wheeze that there was no requirement to obtain DfT approval because the TRO failed to mention a Sect 64 traffic sign was wrong (a negative does not prove a negative) and his colleagues are wrong in repeating the same logic. Perhaps they cut and paste these phrases without ever understanding that a TRO can never trump core legislation.

Mick

[cp8759]

Personally I would raise a complaint, asking that the author of the letter be given more training, as his response is obviously drivel.