PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TFL 46:stopped where prohibited (Red route)
ENT20
post 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.












Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:42
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Firstly don't panic about the time scales you can register your appeal with London tribunals. in the box for evidence write contravention did not occur full submission to follow.
that will get you more time (about 4 weeks)

Next we need more info. The video and council pics. The dates re instating onto both the pcn I can see your concern re the signs but i think a case can be made that the are inadequate


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:45
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The picture you have taken does not relate to the alleged contravention. You need to post the council photos (should be on the TFL website) and ideally the video as well. Also give us a link to the location on Google Street View.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 10:55
Post #4


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Here?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5810315,-...3312!8i6656

But this is where they said you parked:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5822052,-...3312!8i6656

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 11:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ENT20
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 06:37
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,655



Thank you for your response.

Yes, this is the exact location, where the alleged contravention occured

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5822052,-...3312!8i6656

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ENT20
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 07:32
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,655



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 11:45) *
The picture you have taken does not relate to the alleged contravention. You need to post the council photos (should be on the TFL website) and ideally the video as well. Also give us a link to the location on Google Street View.



Council pics, no video has been provided so far by TFL









Also, screen grab of location of alleged contravention
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 07:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well you were in the loading bay and probably didn't spot the dividing lines between bays. The fact that the loading bay sign is not facing traffic is a key point I'd say. We see a lot of TFL PCNs where people have missed demarcations between bays.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 07:59
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



It looks to me like the car behind you was straggling the dividing line so your argument re seeing the parking sign and acting on that is sound


--------------------
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
DancingDad
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 08:10
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



As you say you have to register appeal within 3 days, I assume the discount option is gone.
No matter, but is not a certain win.

Having said that, three bits of guidance are key.
Red Route parking bay signs should face traffic so drivers can see and read before stopping...… this one isn't.
Where bays abut each other, signs should make it clear that there is a change of restriction..... these don't.
Specific loading bays should have loading legend on road.

Your second pic in opening post is telling.
A driver approaching can see restriction, read timings etc for the parking allowance...… but not see the loading sign due to it not being on the demarcation nor facing the right way. It is obvious here that you did not notice the road marking demarcating the bays, easy to miss, had no need to look for signs, you had already read the one that seemed to apply.
Only question I have is whether an adjudicator will agree signage is inadequate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 09:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would take this all the way. You couldn't expect a driver in moving traffic to see a sign that isn't facing traffic, at least not without stopping for a few seconds. But on a no stopping restriction, stopping for a few seconds to read the sign is not permitted. If a sign cannot be read without being in contravention, it must be inadequate.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



Another possibility - what were you doing while in the Loading Bay? If you were actually loading then the full 20 minutes comes into play.

Loading includes taking goods into premises, checking them against paperwork and getting a signature. Pre-ordered goods also count as loading, as do heavy/fragile goods.

Shopping i.e where you go around the shop choosing what you want and paying for them is not loading, neither is going to the Bank unless it's seriously large amounts of money.

The subject of what is/is not loading has been examined in two Adjudication Panels, namely "Westminster city Council vs Jane Packer Flowers" (1997) and more recently (2015) in "Bosworth and Others v. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and others".

cp 8759 also has a good point re. the alignment of he sign, although I got shot down in flames when I suggested this on another Red Route thread!



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ENT20
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 06:58
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,655



Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I will send in the appeal today, I believe the discount option is still on
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 15:23
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (ENT20 @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 07:58) *
Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I will send in the appeal today, I believe the discount option is still on


If you want to, you can post up your appeal on here for the experts to review and make suggestions/corrections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ENT20
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:18
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,655



QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (ENT20 @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 07:58) *
Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I will send in the appeal today, I believe the discount option is still on


If you want to, you can post up your appeal on here for the experts to review and make suggestions/corrections.


Thanks @DastardlyDick.

After reading through a similar thread like mine, here is how I worded the appeal I sent.

"Contravention did not occur - full submission of evidence and additional information to follow.

I am going for the appeal on the following grounds:

Signage facing the wrong way and not being sufficiently visible on approach; especially due to high volume of traffic.

Signage not located in an appropriate location to give clear indication of separate bays.

Use of CCTV rather than CEO."


I hope that I have covered the basic and have given myself some room to add more information (if need be) for the appeal.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:52
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (ENT20 @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:18) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (ENT20 @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 07:58) *
Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I will send in the appeal today, I believe the discount option is still on


If you want to, you can post up your appeal on here for the experts to review and make suggestions/corrections.


Thanks @DastardlyDick.

After reading through a similar thread like mine, here is how I worded the appeal I sent.

"Contravention did not occur - full submission of evidence and additional information to follow.

I am going for the appeal on the following grounds:

Signage facing the wrong way and not being sufficiently visible on approach; especially due to high volume of traffic.

Signage not located in an appropriate location to give clear indication of separate bays.

Use of CCTV rather than CEO."


I hope that I have covered the basic and have given myself some room to add more information (if need be) for the appeal.


Is that the full text of what you sent?

Your point re. CCTV v CEO will not hold water as (a)TfL have an exemption from the otherwise blanket ban on the use of CCTV for parking enforcement and (b) they do use CEOs to enforce as well.

The position of the sign could well come under "substantial compliance".

The only issue you really needed was the fact that the sign is facing the wrong way.

This will undoubtedly go all the way to London Tribunals with the full £130 on the line.


This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 19:05
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



@DD
A sign on a red route that is turned is only good for avoiding the No Stopping bit.... drivers have a duty to check restrictions so unless sign is unreadable or missing, it is not cast iron.
However in this case, the obvious sign is the one at the start of the bay. 7-7 parking allowed.
The turned sign is critical because without it facing traffic, being obvious, there is nothing overt to warn a driver that the restriction has changed.
Transverse line can be missed and why oh why is there not a loading only legend on the road?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:00
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:05) *
why oh why is there not a loading only legend on the road?



TFL don't put loading legends on bays. Not that I've seen anyway.

At least the bays in this one are marked in white - I find it hard to see some red lines as I'm colour blind. I bet TFL never thought of that when they came up with red routes. (1 in 12 men are red-green colour blind).

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:50
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:05) *
why oh why is there not a loading only legend on the road?



TFL don't put loading legends on bays. Not that I've seen anyway.

At least the bays in this one are marked in white - I find it hard to see some red lines as I'm colour blind. I bet TFL never thought of that when they came up with red routes. (1 in 12 men are red-green colour blind).



Irrelevant what TFL normally do.
This is not a shared use bay (where legends cannot be used) and although they are no longer mandatory, they do help to convey the restriction.
Not using one can and should be questioned where it would have made a difference.


Can't help on the colour blindness but am reminded of an instance when I was an apprentice. Asked to do a report about something... included a nice graph to illustrate, pretty colours including red, brown, green...
Had it thrown back by the manager cos it was useless to him, he was colour blind.
Was interesting playing snooker with him though... he'd often line up on the brown instead of a red. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 07:54
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:05) *
@DD
A sign on a red route that is turned is only good for avoiding the No Stopping bit.... drivers have a duty to check restrictions so unless sign is unreadable or missing, it is not cast iron.
However in this case, the obvious sign is the one at the start of the bay. 7-7 parking allowed.
The turned sign is critical because without it facing traffic, being obvious, there is nothing overt to warn a driver that the restriction has changed.
Transverse line can be missed and why oh why is there not a loading only legend on the road?


Unfortunately, the sign referred to isn't at the start of the loading bay, it's in the parking bay before it.
IMO, this is the only defence the OP has - I have tried to find an LT case reference he can use, so far to no avail!

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 07:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 08:01
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 08:54) *
...........Unfortunately, the sign referred to isn't at the start of the loading bay, it's in the parking bay before it.
IMO, this is the only defence the OP has - I have tried to find an OF case reference he can use, so far to no avail!


That's the point.
From an approaching driver's point of view, this is one long bay with an obvious and visible sign right at the start.
They relied upon that sign.
Had the loading bay sign been facing as it should, there would have been a clear indication that there were two bays, not one.
Same if loading legend had been on road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:24
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here