Kingston Upon Thames PCN help 21 please, Kingston Upon Thames PCN help contravention 21 Options

[Yesman]

Hi everyone hope you can advise me on the below please.

I received a PCN contravention 21 for parking in a suspended bay, I had my disabled badge up as space was marked electric disabled. I only later realised space was marked electric vehs and disabled hadn’t been erased properly.
There was a parking suspended notice on 1 post

Could anyone advise please

I will post pics seperate soon

This post has been edited by Yesman: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 - 16:22

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

The contravention is for the suspension but they're having a laugh surely as it's been suspended since 8 August and they've not completed the work.

[PASTMYBEST]

The sign authorisation

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3869.pdf

I do not think until further notice is complicit with the time of day, date (or dates ) that shall be shown on the sign. Nor do I think that, given the legend " disabled is clearly disenable, that the bay suspended is clear

I would also want to see the traffic management order that changes the bay from disabled to electric

[Yesman]

Ok thanks.
So I should appeal stating the that the marking of the bay isn’t clear due to disabled being still visible.
Also that the sign states until further notice which is questionable.

Anything else for my appeal

Maybe the barriers covering the left bay more??

[cp8759]

Do not send anything without putting a draft on here first.

Can you get us a close-up photo of the sign?

[Yesman]

Close up added to post. Cheers

[cp8759]

Is your vehicle electric or a plug-in hybrid?

[Yesman]

No is just a diesel

[cp8759]

Then your challenge should be based on the following:

1) The road markings mislead you into thinking it was a disabled bay.

2) The suspension sign only refers to an electric bay, not an electric / disable bay.

3) The suspension sign is unlawful anyway as it does not provide the information required by para 1(a) regarding the dates of the suspension.

If you post up a draft we'll tidy it up for you.

[Yesman]

"To Whom It May Concern:
I am appealing PCN no: xxxxxxxxx on the following grounds that:

a)The PCN states the car was "parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space". However the notice of suspension on display at the time the alleged contravention is said to have occurred, did not clearly state electric/disabled is actually suspended. The suspension only stated the electric bay was suspended.

The bays/spaces are not clearly marked as upon parking I read the bay to be electric/disabled , therefore I contend that the road markings in place are vague and misleading which gives a false impression to road users at the time. I also request a copy of the authorisation documents for the suspension of the parking bay which covers the time the alleged contravention took place.

B)The road traffic regulation act 1984 states that information showing time of day, date (or dates ) shall be shown on the sign.
The sign fails to adhere to the law as it states until further notice so the required information isn’t displayed.

My conclusion is that not only did the contravention not occur, but as I highlighted the NTO is materially defective when compared to the obligations and requirements established in law. This I submit renders the NTO invalid.



I hope it’s okay, I used other people’s letters as template

[PASTMYBEST]

"To Whom It May Concern:
I am appealing PCN no: xxxxxxxxx on the following grounds that:

a)The PCN states the car was "parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space". However the notice of suspension on display at the time the alleged contravention is said to have occurred, did not clearly state electric/disabled is actually suspended. The suspension only stated the electric bay was suspended.

The bays/spaces are not clearly marked as upon parking I read the bay to be electric/disabled , therefore I contend that the road markings in place are vague and misleading which gives a false impression to road users at the time. I also request a copy of the authorisation documents for the suspension of the parking bay which covers the time the alleged contravention took place.

B)The road traffic regulation act 1984 states that information showing time of day, date (or dates ) shall be shown on the sign.
The sign fails to adhere to the law as it states until further notice so the required information isn’t displayed.

My conclusion is that not only did the contravention not occur, but as I highlighted the NTO is materially defective when compared to the obligations and requirements established in law. This I submit renders the NTO invalid.



I hope it’s okay, I used other people’s letters as template

Your para B is not the RTRA 1984 but the SoS special authorisation I linked to in an earlier post

[cp8759]

New and improved version:

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

I am making a representation against PCN no: xxxxxxxxx on the following grounds:

a) The PCN states the car was "parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space". However the notice of suspension on display at the time the alleged contravention is said to have occurred, did not clearly state an electric / disabled bay actually suspended. The suspension only stated the electric bay was suspended.

The bays/spaces are not clearly marked as upon parking I read the bay to be electric/disabled, therefore I contend that the road markings in place are positively misleading as they give a false impression to road users, such that the requirement of adequacy imposed by regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 is not met.

B) The parking suspension sign is not authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2016, it is instead subject to special authorisation by the Secretary of State for Transport under reference GT50/155/0013. One of the conditions of the authorisation is that "information regarding the time of day, date or dates (with or without the year)... shall be shown on the authorised sign". The sign fails to satisfy this requirement because "until further notice" does not convey a date and the sign cannot to said to be substantially compliant with the requirements of the authorisation.

For these reasons, the alleged contravention did not occur.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 - 01:45

[Yesman]

Thanks guys. I will send off appeal today and keep you posted.

[Yesman]

I have just received a reply to my appeal, please see below😓
What do you guys advise on my next step.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Mad Mick V]

Charging point provided not by the Council but Chargemaster so I wonder if the suspension fee (for such a long period) £54 per day is picked up by the company. I doubt it, but the comment by stamf at post 2 is highly relevant.

From their website Chargemaster appear to do the installation work.

Perhaps the OP might like to contact the company and ask when the charging point is to be brought back into use:-


https://bpchargemaster.com/


https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb...QoiowCnoECA4QBg

The other issue which must be considered is that the PCN was given on a Sunday afternoon so I would expect the Kingston on Thames noise and environmental protocols to apply. The following relates to sites but it must relate to general footway works too:-

"Site noise is usually controlled by restricting the hours of noisy operations. This ensures that noise from the site which can be heard beyond the site boundary will only happen from 8am - 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am - 1pm Saturday, and no noisy work on Sundays and bank holidays".


At present I don't think the OP has winnable case because an adjudicator will maintain the sign is substantially compliant with the DfT authority which doesn't specify an end date other than the 6 months limit.

Mick

[cp8759]

At present I don't think the OP has winnable case because an adjudicator will maintain the sign is substantially compliant with the DfT authority which doesn't specify an end date other than the 6 months limit.

An adjudicator could go either way on the signage. I think the council's position is weaker than you suggest. If the council can simply write "until further notice" on all its suspension signs, the first half of article 1(a) of the SoS authorisation becomes a dead letter. The issue of adequacy under LATOR remains in any event because of the ambiguous road markings.

Yesman, you need to decide whether it's worth risking the discount by pursuing this further, we cannot guarantee the outcome but you have a fighting chance.

[Yesman]

Ok Thanks for the advice guys.
Still mulling it over wether to fight or pay up at reduced rate.
I did email the people about the charging point, reply below.


The unit will be getting replaced and we are in the process.

However I do not have a timescale of when this will be actioned.

I will chase up the relevant team and try my best to get this actioned as soon as.

I hope this helps.

Many Thanks

Moin Akbar
Night Shift Team Leader