PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Suspended bay again, Suspension applied without notice or suitably placed.
dadant
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 12:47
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Hello forum, I have a feeling I'm grasping at straws a little but would appreciate any guidance or advice on whether I have any grounds for an appeal.

I reside in a CPZ in a London borough where a large single unmarked bay straddles both the front of mine and my neighbour's properties (1), the bay was suspended for around three weeks while roadworks were completed and the notice for that works was placed on post (2) as it is the nearest available. Once the suspension was over and thinking the roadworks were completed I parked in the bay where I left the car for around 24 hrs when I noticed the PCN on my vehicle, I then realised another suspension notice had been reapplied and fitted to the no entry sign to the right of the bay (3). Do I have any case at all as I was given no notice of the bay suspension and the sign wasn't placed I feel on an appropriate site/sign nor is it on the post nearest to the bay concerned. Thanks in advance.

1.
Attached Image


2.
Attached Image


3.
Attached Image


4.
Attached Image


5.
Attached Image


6.

Attached Image


This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 13:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 12:47
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 15:30
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,687
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Lets see the letter. Something I can say right now is that the sign did not comply with TSRGD 2002


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:12
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,874
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It's not whether a sign complies with TSRGD, this does not place a duty on the council.

This is placed by LATOR and the council's order.

Whether the order has a provision which taken on its own 'designates' the parking place is not the issue because, read as a whole, an order - and LATOR for that matter - require a parking place to be signed with a compliant traffic sign.

And it's not there.

A motorist is permitted to park, look for a traffic sign 'in or in the vicinity' of the parking place and then comply.

There is no such sign in the vicinity - the No Entry post would be laughed at by the adj.

I would take care to not make the adj think you read the sign before the event but only after the fact based on the authority's photos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadant
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 19:16
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Here's the letter, I've combined both parts...

Attached Image


What does an adj involve. a re-submission of the evidence, a personal appearance?

This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 19:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 19:39
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,350
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well seems to me the challenge and rejection set the hare running that a bay can be suspended by a sign not in the bay. I'm sure that this can be tackled at NTO stage and if still rejected would win at the tribunal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 20:20
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,687
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 19:39) *
Well seems to me the challenge and rejection set the hare running that a bay can be suspended by a sign not in the bay. I'm sure that this can be tackled at NTO stage and if still rejected would win at the tribunal.


three things re the sign


not in the bay so why look for it

its says one space but there is space for two cars

its not a permit bay

I would be carrying on


--------------------
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
dadant
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 21:14
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Just to add/refresh if it is still relevant or helpful...

the car was parked in the bay after a previous suspension had ended and I didn't notice there was a new suspension order until I looked after seeing the PCN on my vehicle, the council response infers incorrectly I parked the vehicle and didn't see the sign or should've at least looked for it when infact I just hadn't used the car for a couple of days. The new signage must've been put up over the weekend when no work was taking place and the site appeared to be finished with, again no reason why I should be looking especially as I have a small drive I could've parked on if needed.


What does NTO stage usually involve?

This post has been edited by dadant: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 21:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 21:20
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,350
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 20:20) *
not in the bay so why look for it


OP - this is the overriding factor in my view. Don't get bogged down by where the sign was and what it said - these can be added to show what the authority is relying on but this is the first point.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 21:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:38
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,234
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'd go for an all guns blazing approach here: The sign is not in the bay, even if it had been very close to the bay, it relates to a permit bay so even if an overly diligent motorist went up to the sign, he would conclude it relates to some other bay, add that the 2002 regs have been repealed (Eyong Besong v Transport for London) and no version of the TSRGD has ever authorised a suspension sign, and it's hard to see how you could lose.

The NtO stage involves waiting for the Notice to Owner to arrive and then submitting formal representations. Do not submit anything without getting us to check your draft first. If I have time I might just write the reps for you. Just post up the Notice to Owner when it arrived. In the meantime maybe check the name and address on the V5C is 100% correct (don't assume, actually check).


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:48
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,350
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I think CP this still defaults to their sign. I would start off a formal rep with something like:

I parked in a bay that has no sign and no post for a sign and has not had either for some time. For this bay to be suspended I am entitled to rely on a suspension sign on a sign in the bay - but there is no sign and I could not therefore know it was suspended when I parked.

Please note that PCNs have been issued in this unsigned bay before and cancelled by you precisely because of a lack of a sign that must be in a bay to designate it as a controlled parking space for the motorist. (enclose evidence of previous?)

I see that you are relying on a sign that is not in the bay.....

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 01:11
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,687
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



consideration must be given to this case in any representation

216022303A

he Appellant's vehicle was close to the suspension notice. She said that she did not see it. She paid for parking.
The Appellant might have missed the sign because the sign was designed (and authorised) to be displayed in three dimensions. Folding it flat and attaching it to a reduces its visibility.
One must therefore go on to ask why the sign is not attached to a sign post and the conclusion I have drawn is that this is because there is no sign post. This raises another perhaps more important point.
The suspension notice indicates that a permit bay is suspended. The Appellant thought that she was in a pay and display bay. Tis poses a question as to whether the resident's bay was properly signed in the first place. Unless the resident's bay is properly signed, the suspension notice is meaningless even if the Appellant had seen it.
The Authority has not provided any evidence that there was a resident's bay sign. It was the Appellant who provided a photograph showing a resident's bay sign. There are other signs adjacent to it which significantly reduces its significance as a parking sign. It also showed that unlike the conventional and recommended practice, the suspension notice and the bay sign are not put together. There is no good reason for this. One might even argue that this is because the bay sign is not conspicuous.
I am not satisfied hat the signage was adequate. I allow the appeal.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 07:48
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,874
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I parked in an area marked with road markings indicating a parking place.

There was no traffic sign in or within the vicinity of the parking place.

The authority rely on a suspension notice erected on an unrelated post used to display a No Entry sign 20 metres away from the parkng place.

I did not see this sign at the time which, after the fact, I can see refers to a 'permit' bay despite there being no signed 'permit' bay in its vicinity.

I wuld not go into past history, the facts at the time will win on their own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:45
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,234
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I agree with the above.


--------------------
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
dadant
post Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 20:58
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Thanks for all your contributions, I'll get back to you when I receive the NtO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadant
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 03:43
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Sorry for late reply as I've been away but returned to be greeted by the NtO.

I'd like to post it but have reached the limit of my upload allowance and can no longer edit the first page of this thread containing the pictures, please advise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 11 May 2019 - 14:02
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,234
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (dadant @ Sat, 11 May 2019 - 04:43) *
Sorry for late reply as I've been away but returned to be greeted by the NtO.

I'd like to post it but have reached the limit of my upload allowance and can no longer edit the first page of this thread containing the pictures, please advise.

Post to an external site like imgr.com or imgbb.com and either post a link, or use the BB links to embed the images if you know how to do that.


--------------------
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
dadant
post Mon, 13 May 2019 - 07:12
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Thanks, page 3 was omitted as just contained methods of payment.

NtO link



I was going to use the following reply as contributed earlier by hcandersen...


I parked in an area marked with road markings indicating a parking place.

There was no traffic sign in or within the vicinity of the parking place.

The authority rely on a suspension notice erected on an unrelated post used to display a No Entry sign 20 metres away from the parkng place.

I did not see this sign at the time which, after the fact, I can see refers to a 'permit' bay despite there being no signed 'permit' bay in its vicinity.



Should I bother using the form to make representations, is the traffic order alleged to be contravened invalid?

This post has been edited by dadant: Mon, 13 May 2019 - 07:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 19:41
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,234
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would amend it slightly, see draft below. As they say you can make representations online you might as well do that, sending stuff by post is slower and more expensive.


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

I parked in an area marked with road markings indicating a parking place, there was no traffic sign in or within the vicinity of the parking place.

The authority rely on a suspension notice erected on an unrelated post used to display a No Entry sign 20 metres away from the parking place.

I did not see this sign at the time. Having now seen the council's photos, I note the sign in question refers to a permit bay, as my vehicle was not parked in a permit bay there was no contravention of this sign. It may be that the sign was intended for a permit bay nearby but I have no knowledge of such matters. In any event the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
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
dadant
post Thu, 16 May 2019 - 09:41
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Thanks, I'll send it off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadant
post Thu, 16 May 2019 - 12:05
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 6 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,784



Should I submit any photographic evidence again?

This post has been edited by dadant: Thu, 16 May 2019 - 12:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 17 May 2019 - 23:11
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,234
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (dadant @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 13:05) *
Should I submit any photographic evidence again?

I don't see why, they'll have your previous correspondence on file, and they'll reject no matter what you send them. It's only at the tribunal that you get a fair hearing.


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

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Friday, 20th September 2019 - 02:14
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.