PCN Contravention of a Parking Supension Options

[Bigeo]

Hi Guys,

So I received a PCN earlier this month for my motorcycle being parked in contravention of a parking suspension.

Tl;Dr of the below, different signs in different locations showing to different suspension for the same 15m length of road.

Upon arriving on the street I park on daily during the day (around 08:50am), I parked my motorbike and observed a parking suspension sign on the signpost next to it. I checked the sign and the suspension date was given as 31st of August to the 2nd of September.

I passed my bike around 1pm and noticed there was a ticket on the handlebars. To my surprise I had been given it for parking in a suspended bay, initially I was confused, but upon inspecting two cones (which I had definitely not seen earlier) at either end of the 3 bay stretch i'd parked in, they had a suspension in force for that day only (5th August).


For clarity, lets refer to the sign on the lampost as "Sign A" and the one in the foreground "Sign B"


Close up of Sign A


Close up of Sign B

There was an additional cone not visible as it was on the pavement behind the parked 4x4.


This can be Sign C


The approach from the only road that leads to this one, Signs A and B clearly visible, but sign C completely hidden

Now, in my opinion, this is simply not clear enough right? I never even saw the cones in the morning when I parked and even if I had, upon checking the signage closest to my vehicle (Sign A), I was satisfied there were no suspensions in force. In my opinion, the signs are unclear/inconsistent.(Side note, there were upwards of 10-15 suspension notices up and down the street, all relating to the suspension indicated on Sign A, the only reference to the other date was on Signs B and C)

So I made an informal appeal, and it was rejected (unfortunately I don't have a copy of the appeal I made. I feel potentially I didn't explain my objections clear enough).

You can see a copy of the letter in the following links,

https://i.imgur.com/Ozs4La1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/61xcEJJ.jpg

I will include a copy of the PCN on Monday when I am back in the office.

Any thoughts/advice would be much appreciated, and if anybody wants more information, I'd be happy to provide it.

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[Mad Mick V]

They have to produce an approved traffic sign as per:-
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3021.pdf
The cones may well in themselves be a traffic sign but for the purposes of a suspension they are not enough--there has to be the yellow sign posted on a lamppost etc with the applicable date and suspended area.
Having got DfT approval for the suspension sign to be treated as a traffic sign, as shown above, they have to comply with the traffic sign part of LATOR 1996 (Reg 18) to ensure the signs are adequate, don't cause confusion or mislead.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made
"adequate, don't cause confusion or mislead" plus having to get down on hands and knees to read the wretched thing.

They have got it wrong and I would continue to appeal at the NTO stage.

Mick

[Bigeo]

They have to produce an approved traffic sign as per:-
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3021.pdf
The cones may well in themselves be a traffic sign but for the purposes of a suspension they are not enough--there has to be the yellow sign posted on a lamppost etc with the applicable date and suspended area.
Having got DfT approval for the suspension sign to be treated as a traffic sign, as shown above, they have to comply with the traffic sign part of LATOR 1996 (Reg 18) to ensure the signs are adequate, don't cause confusion or mislead.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made
"adequate, don't cause confusion or mislead" plus having to get down on hands and knees to read the wretched thing.

They have got it wrong and I would continue to appeal at the NTO stage.

Mick

Thanks very much for your reply.

So just to clarify, essentially, for the suspension to have been valid, they would have had to display a sign like the above, in addition to the cones?

This post has been edited by Bigeo: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 18:22

[PASTMYBEST]

Post the PCN and the council photos these may be online or you may have to ask for them but we need them

[Bigeo]

Post the PCN and the council photos these may be online or you may have to ask for them but we need them

As I mentioned in my post, I'll post the PCN on Monday.

Whats the best way to get hold of the images if they're not online? Shall I email them to request?

(If you look at the link to the rejection letter, there are two of their images on the left. With one of mine on the right, on the first page).

Thanks

This post has been edited by Bigeo: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 18:56

[PASTMYBEST]

I am being a bit pedantic but want to know which is your bike of the 3 in front of the car. I am not confident an adjudicator would find the sign on the cone less than substantially compliant so want to explore the sign on the post and the relevant proximity of each to you bike

[Bigeo]

I am being a bit pedantic but want to know which is your bike of the 3 in front of the car. I am not confident an adjudicator would find the sign on the cone less than substantially compliant so want to explore the sign on the post and the relevant proximity of each to you bike

My bike is the Honda Grom, the little red and black one behind the two mopeds (Right next to the sign on the lamp post!)

[PASTMYBEST]

so you are entitled to rely on the post sign and do not need to go traipsing the street looking for another one

[Bigeo]

so you are entitled to rely on the post sign and do not need to go traipsing the street looking for another one

I pretty much said this in my informal appeal, unfortunately I don't have a copy of it.

Part of me feels like they simply haven't understood what I was trying to explain/show with the images. Maybe I'll make them a pretty diagram for my formal appeal.

[Incandescent]

so you are entitled to rely on the post sign and do not need to go traipsing the street looking for another one

I pretty much said this in my informal appeal, unfortunately I don't have a copy of it.

Part of me feels like they simply haven't understood what I was trying to explain/show with the images. Maybe I'll make them a pretty diagram for my formal appeal.

Oh, they've understood all right, but as 99% of people cough-up when their reps are rejected, they just bat off all reps regardless; it makes them lots of money ! Only when reps are received in response to a Notice to Owner are things looked at more closely. The question now is, now you know the score, are you prepared to stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals ?The reason so many cough-up is they find it easier to pay the discounted amount and aren't happy with a double-or-quits gamble that the appeal process essentially is.

[cp8759]

so you are entitled to rely on the post sign and do not need to go traipsing the street looking for another one

I pretty much said this in my informal appeal, unfortunately I don't have a copy of it.

Part of me feels like they simply haven't understood what I was trying to explain/show with the images. Maybe I'll make them a pretty diagram for my formal appeal.

Oh, they've understood all right, but as 99% of people cough-up when their reps are rejected, they just bat off all reps regardless; it makes them lots of money ! Only when reps are received in response to a Notice to Owner are things looked at more closely. The question now is, now you know the score, are you prepared to stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals ?The reason so many cough-up is they find it easier to pay the discounted amount and aren't happy with a double-or-quits gamble that the appeal process essentially is.

This being Bath, it'll be the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The case seems straightforward, the motorist parked, checked a sign which indicated no suspension was in force at the time, so he was entitled to rely on that sign. Having listened into a few telephone appeals recently, personally I would be amazed if an adjudicator didn't accept this as a valid ground of appeal.

[Bigeo]

Oh, they've understood all right, but as 99% of people cough-up when their reps are rejected, they just bat off all reps regardless; it makes them lots of money ! Only when reps are received in response to a Notice to Owner are things looked at more closely. The question now is, now you know the score, are you prepared to stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals ?The reason so many cough-up is they find it easier to pay the discounted amount and aren't happy with a double-or-quits gamble that the appeal process essentially is.

In for a penny in for a pound aint it?

This being Bath, it'll be the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The case seems straightforward, the motorist parked, checked a sign which indicated no suspension was in force at the time, so he was entitled to rely on that sign. Having listened into a few telephone appeals recently, personally I would be amazed if an adjudicator didn't accept this as a valid ground of appeal.

I agree obviously, but with a bit of technical back up (like mentioned in Mad Micks reply), it should be a pretty solid case I'd hope!

[Mad Mick V]

OP ---I failed to mention the mounting height of traffic signs. The TSM has been amended recently but this post should give you an inkling of what the Council must do:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1233436

Mick

[Bigeo]

OP ---I failed to mention the mounting height of traffic signs. The TSM has been amended recently but this post should give you an inkling of what the Council must do:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1233436

Mick

Thanks for that, also useful info.

Now just got to wait for the NTO

[Bigeo]

I've just been having a look, is it also potentially relevant that I can't seem to find a copy of the TTRO that covered this suspension? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[hcandersen]

This is getting overly complicated IMO.

I parked; I saw that I was parked in a parking place by virtue of the road markings; I looked for the relevant traffic sign indicating the restriction; I found this immediately in my field of vision some 2 metres to my left; I consulted this sign and then consulted the yellow suspension sign hanging immediately beneath, then I consulted my watch and my calendar: I had to pay the parking charge - which I did - and noted that the parking place would be suspended on 31st Aug/1 Sept.

I left my vehicle as I was entitled to do.

If the authority want to argue at adjudication that in addition to the relevant and prominent traffic sign and associated suspension sign warning of a suspension some 2 weeks hence I was in some way and by virtue some some extra sensory perception to seek out another sign advising of a suspension on the day in question situated in the parking place at ground level and totally obscured from vision from where I parked then I wish them luck and would suggest they bring their cheque book to the hearing.

The last paragraph needs a little tweaking!

OP, as a matter of detail did you pay to park?

[PASTMYBEST]

This is getting overly complicated IMO.

I parked; I saw that I was parked in a parking place by virtue of the road markings; I looked for the relevant traffic sign indicating the restriction; I found this immediately in my field of vision some 2 metres to my left; I consulted this sign and then consulted the yellow suspension sign hanging immediately beneath, then I consulted my watch and my calendar: I had to pay the parking charge - which I did - and noted that the parking place would be suspended on 31st Aug/1 Sept.

I left my vehicle as I was entitled to do.

If the authority want to argue at adjudication that in addition to the relevant and prominent traffic sign and associated suspension sign warning of a suspension some 2 weeks hence I was in some way and by virtue some some extra sensory perception to seek out another sign advising of a suspension on the day in question situated in the parking place at ground level and totally obscured from vision from where I parked then I wish them luck and would suggest they bring their cheque book to the hearing.

The last paragraph needs a little tweaking!

OP, as a matter of detail did you pay to park?

just a little but not yet

[Bigeo]

@hcandersen

Yeah, probably is a little bit, I suppose I just wanted to know what I was up against.

I think at the moment, once the NTO comes through, I will submit an appeal that essentially explains the circumstances in a little more detail as you suggested. Then if it goes to the adjudicator I'll maybe dig into the other stuff a bit deeper.

In regards to payment, Motorcycle parking in this location is free of charge.

[hcandersen]

Post a draft here first.

OPs have a habit of thinking that weight of evidence should be taken literally and include second-order issues when unnecessary, and even if they could be included they're given incorrect prominence.

I have given you the practical application of the law and incorporated it into the draft in plain English. IMO, there is no need to go beyond this. For example, the format and legality of the cone signs are secondary: you parked; you saw the blindingly obvious; you noted and complied: end of. But you could add...and by the way, having reviewed the authority's photos it would appear that the purported suspension signs on the cones fail to comply with minimum legal requirements, and were therefore unenforceable, because .......

[Bigeo]

PCN Below...