TFL 46:stopped where prohibited (Red route) |
TFL 46:stopped where prohibited (Red route) |
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:17
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,655 |
The vehicle was parked on Hendon way NW4, on the road (Red route), but entirely within the parking bay provided and for the allowed number of hours i.e less than 1 hr.
It is a restricted parking area (Red Route) but parking is allowed Mon-Sat 7am-7pm, for 1hr, no return within 2hrs. The 1st thing I received was a TFL Penalty charge notice (posted) within 14days of the incident occurring. I then responded in less than 21days with the following; “The sign on approach to this bay states that parking is permitted Mon-Sat 7am-7pm for 1hr (no return within 2hrs) - I was in the bay for less than 1hr and did not return. Having taken due note of the sign and complied with the timings thereon there is no reason to receive a PCN. As I complied, the contravention did not occur. My supporting documents include images of the signage allowing parking and images of my approach to the parking bay showing the location of my car at the time of the said contravention - from the driver's point of view. Should you decide not to cancel please supply all relevant information to enable myself to make an informed decision on the worth or otherwise of this PCN and future appeals. This includes all still photos that you believe show the contravention; whatever traffic regulation creates the parking place or exception from Red Route Stopping prohibitions and any notes made by the camera operator relating to the issue of the PCN.” The alleged offence is 46: Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway). Expectedly, my representation was rejected and I have to make an appeal within the next 3days (unfortunately, I only found out about this site yesterday). I did not intentionally park in the prohibited are as I did not see the Loading only sign on approach or when I parked. I have attached the rejection letter and a few pics. Please let me know if any more details are required as I need assistance urgently. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 07:48
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
Isn't it optional putting "Loading" or whatever on the road?
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 09:29
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Isn't it optional putting "Loading" or whatever on the road? It is But could have been here in this case and would have put approaching driver on notice that there was a change to restriction. The argument is not that it should have been there, simply that without it and with post sign turned, authority is relying on the demarcation line to inform drivers of the change. Which is easily missed and indeed may have been obscured by parked vehicles |
|
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:06
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Not had time to read this but there may be something in white vs red markings here:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...d%20v%20TfL.pdf |
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:03
Post
#24
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 28 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,655 |
Evidence pack finally received from TFL.
Do I need to post it here? |
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:27
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Need to tell us what it says
Summary page is oftn useful to post. |
|
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 21:34
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Hope this is the OP, but he can use it otherwise:- 2180273110 O/s 411-417 Hendon Way Mr I attended today. He appeals as he argues that the signing of the red route bay was insufficiently clear.Mr I states that he was visiting a client in Hendon Way. He saw a red route sign that faced oncoming traffic that indicated the red route was operational Monday to Saturday 7am to 7pm and that parking was permitted for up to an hour. He parked his car the bay. Transport for London provides a photograph of the sign that relates to the part of the bay in which the car was parked. It indicates that the red route is operational Monday to Saturday 7am to 7pm and that loading is permitted for up to twenty minutes. Transport for London’s photographs show that this sign faced into the carriageway and did not face oncoming traffic. The appellant states that he did not see this sign. A red route sign should face oncoming traffic so that motorists can see that stopping is prohibited without having to stop to read the sign. Mr I relied on the sign that he saw as he drove past. I find that because the second sign in the bay did not face oncoming traffic the signage was insufficiently clear to alert motorists of the two different types of bay. I allow this appeal. ---------------------------------------- Mick |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:33
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Hope this is the OP, but he can use it otherwise:- 2180273110 O/s 411-417 Hendon Way Mr I attended today. He appeals as he argues that the signing of the red route bay was insufficiently clear.Mr I states that he was visiting a client in Hendon Way. He saw a red route sign that faced oncoming traffic that indicated the red route was operational Monday to Saturday 7am to 7pm and that parking was permitted for up to an hour. He parked his car the bay. Transport for London provides a photograph of the sign that relates to the part of the bay in which the car was parked. It indicates that the red route is operational Monday to Saturday 7am to 7pm and that loading is permitted for up to twenty minutes. Transport for London’s photographs show that this sign faced into the carriageway and did not face oncoming traffic. The appellant states that he did not see this sign. A red route sign should face oncoming traffic so that motorists can see that stopping is prohibited without having to stop to read the sign. Mr I relied on the sign that he saw as he drove past. I find that because the second sign in the bay did not face oncoming traffic the signage was insufficiently clear to alert motorists of the two different types of bay. I allow this appeal. ---------------------------------------- Mick Exactly what we were saying to OP. Hope it is him. Good result for a little common sense anyway. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:47 |