Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Goswell Rd Islington vs City of London

Posted by: sainthalo Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 13:05
Post #1345132

I (now understand) that where I parked is on the border between Islington and City of London council (the Goswell Rd / Aldersgate Rd (EDIT: Aldersgate Street EC1) junction).

I could not find any street signage to identify the restricted parking times for the single yellow line.

I saw three wardens (a female and two males). They each wore the same traffic warden uniform which had a peaked black cap with a red band.

I asked all three officers collectively if it was okay to park my car on this single yellow line and pointed to the single yellow line and to my parked car.

The female traffic warden informed me from across the road that it was okay to park my car on a single yellow line. I was stood next to my car.

Around an hour later at 1858 I was issued a PCN by Islington Council.

It seems the female traffic warden mislead me and the two male officers didn't correct her.

As they are all official traffic wardens (whether from Islington or from City of London) it was reasonable and proper for me to believe them.

I couldn't identify the nearest street signage showing the controlled hours for the single yellow line.

Surely there should be street signage identifying controlled hours at the Goswell Rd / Aldersgate Rd junction as it seems it is a border between City of London and Islington and therefore is an entrance point to a zone controlled by Islington?

PCN attached in case of interest.

Location of parking was before the white van in this picture: https://goo.gl/maps/UnixyvfF1tA2

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 13:30
Post #1345149

You weren't near Aldersgate but must have have been further up Goswell Road where it is a boundary between Islington and CoL.

Islington made zone C mostly a 24 hour zone last year.

What route did you take to park and where exactly did you park (show on Google Street View). The zone entry signs may be missing or confusing especially where two zones meet in the middle fo the road.

Posted by: Jo Carn Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 17:08
Post #1345242

I'm trying to understand where you were although for now, I have a certain sympathy. The signs near Aldersgate and Old Street show the "Borough of Finsbury" on the Islington sign. If you are not familiar with the area... If you were near Aldersgate then one side of the road has parking permissable after 11.00a.m. on a Saturday and the other side doesn't show te the borough you are in.

Need to know where you were parked

Posted by: Mad Mick V Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 17:56
Post #1345253

Boundary roads are alluded to here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/125

It seems there is no agreement between the two authorities and a differential system in place.

My view on the two silent CEOs on that side of the street is that you asked the question and in the absence of a reply took it as read that it was permissible to park. Their clear duty was to ask you to move on which they did not. Entrapment---abuse of process--who knows?

Mick

Posted by: sainthalo Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 17:56
Post #1345254

Thanks for the replies!

It's actually Goswell Rd / Aldersgate Street EC1 junction.

Location of parking was before the white van in this picture: https://goo.gl/maps/UnixyvfF1tA2

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 8 Jan 2018 - 18:26
Post #1345264

And your route was? If you came from the south you will have passed a CPZ sign just before that no doubt now has the new zone C times:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5211203,-0.0975088,3a,33.2y,13.56h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBL0NVdu4qiAB3AS3rO2SPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If you came from the north you will have passed a CoL sign on your left but it's more likely you came from the south.

to be clear - you asked two CEOs on the Islington side?

Posted by: Jo Carn Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 11:43
Post #1345458

If you approached on the Islington side then I'm puzzled.
firstly, there is no way of knowing you are in Isligton.
Secondly, if the sign on Google is correct, restrictions end at 1.30 on a Saturday but you got the ticket on Saturday evening.

What have I missed?

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 11:51
Post #1345464

Dunno about entrapment but I'd certainly be including "acting on the authority of uniformed CEOs"
That alone is sufficient to win it as long as an adjudicator believes you.

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 11:53
Post #1345467

QUOTE (Jo Carn @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 11:43) *
What have I missed?


As I said zone C has new times so that sign will have been changed (I expect).

We need the exact story on the route and where he spoke to the CEOs from the OP.

Posted by: superkoreanzombie Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:00
Post #1345491

I can confirm that particular area has changed it’s restriction/ times. My friend lives right there and recently got a pcn visitkmg his own mum on a Sunday I believe/ he’s parked there on and off for numerous yrs

As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:12
Post #1345496

QUOTE (superkoreanzombie @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof


Not useless.
Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.
But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant.
Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.

Posted by: superkoreanzombie Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:21
Post #1345501

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 14:12) *
QUOTE (superkoreanzombie @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof


Not useless.
Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.
But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant.
Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.


Oh yes sorry I didn’t know that- I only got as far as the council on that part. Thanks

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:29
Post #1345506

QUOTE (superkoreanzombie @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 14:12) *
QUOTE (superkoreanzombie @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof


Not useless.
Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.
But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant.
Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.


Oh yes sorry I didn’t know that- I only got as far as the council on that part. Thanks


Look at the file of case to assist arguments thread at the top of the forum. There are many cases in there where motorists have acted on assurances from a CEO

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:38
Post #1345509

At the moment, I see a motorist who for whatever reason, missed the signage which may or may not have been in place.
So took a common sense approach to whether or not it was lawful to park.
They asked not one but a group of CEOs and was told you can park there.
This to me is the primary point.

If errors in signage or confusion on location due to invisible border lines can be found they can be used.
And should be.
But IMO as an "after finding the PCN I did some research and .... "
And can bolster the "I was confused so asked..."


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:09
Post #1345691

recent case, similar circumstances

2170543208

I heard from the appellant when she attended on 6 January.
It was she that park the car on the day restricted.
She told me how she was attending first registration at Saturday language school for her five-year-old. This was at 9 am and she had not previously parked in the street.
She gave evidence of consulting a patrolling officer who indicated that it was permissible at park on a Saturday.
It is now apparent that it was not and the officer who ticketed the car correctly identified the Saturday single yellow line restrictions as being in force.
The appellant wrote in and there was recorded delivery to what I believe was the correct address. I have seen the post office receipt for one reason or another the Council has been unable to trace or track.
The appellant argued principally for an extension of the initial discount. The initial discount was not extended as Council staff appear to have been unaware of early representations. The appellant effectively apologised for not keeping a copy of these and she recognises she says she should have done. They were I believe written while she was at work at the major teaching hospital where she has a responsible managerial position.
I was interested to hear from that that on a later Saturday she spoke again with the officer who she says misinformed her on the date with which we are here concerned. She says that he remembered and after some reluctance, effectively apologised. She does not criticise the officer of seeking to trick her. She was with a child and would have been respectful to him.
She has struck me as being a wholly reliable witness in relation to the misinformation that she received. Although her appeal to me was presented essentially with the focus on the opportunity to pay at the lower rate I have decided that her case is strong enough for complete cancellation of the penalty charge. I have reached this conclusion on the basis of crucial misinformation from the patrolling officer. I recognise that it is very easy to blame a patrolling officer for misinformation and I am well aware in this Tribunal that there are motorists who claim this in a bogus way. As I have said I have accepted the appellant explanation and version of events and believe this appeal must thus properly recorded as allowed.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:17
Post #1345694

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:09) *
recent case, similar circumstances

2170543208.........


Credibility !
The adjudicator believed, if they do, they will find in favour.

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:20
Post #1345697

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:09) *
recent case,



Interesting how these appeals are like mini life stories. We can pretty much deduce the busy days of the appellant.

Have to say it probably helps to be at a "major teaching hospital where she has a responsible managerial position"...

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:32
Post #1345707

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:20) *
....Have to say it probably helps to be at a "major teaching hospital where she has a responsible managerial position"...


And can express herself intelligibly (or presumably so)

I have often thought that many cases are lost as the appellant cannot express (and sometimes even understand) the fine points of the law that are put forward.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 08:52
Post #1345778

I know I march out of step at times and have a habit of challenging OPs' posts for reasons of clarity, but how in heaven's name could anyone hold a conversation with anyone on the other side of this busy road at 7pm on a Saturday given the inevitable traffic noise?

And as the OP asked 'all three officers collectively' and as we know that the female officer was on the other side of the road, then were all three on the other side?

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:04
Post #1345785

No you are not out of step - I said earlier:

We need the exact story on the route and where he spoke to the CEOs from the OP.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:18
Post #1345814

Or we both are😀

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:31
Post #1345828

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:18) *
Or we both are😀


Don't see it as out of step to highlight weaknesses. This will all come down to who an adjudicator believes, so your trying to drag out the answers now at the very least should focus the OP

Posted by: sainthalo Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:55
Post #1346469

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 14:12) *
QUOTE (superkoreanzombie @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof


Not useless.
Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.
But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant.
Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.


I have done a FOI request to both councils asking for identities of the three wardens.
I have asked for CCTV footage or stills showing me talking to them as well.
I will have to pay £10 to get the footage under a DPA SAR.


QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:04) *
We need the exact story on the route and where he spoke to the CEOs from the OP.


I just can't remember the route I drove. I followed a satnav. I drive in central london a lot over the years so it has all faded into one.

I spoke to the CEOs from the side of the road I parked on. They were across the road. I shouted across andpointed down to single yellows and asked "is it okay to park on these single yellows at this time?". The lady replied and said "yes it's fine" and gave me a thumbs up; she even smiled.


Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 13:19
Post #1346477

QUOTE (sainthalo @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:55) *
I just can't remember the route I drove. I followed a satnav. I drive in central london a lot over the years so it has all faded into one.

I spoke to the CEOs from the side of the road I parked on. They were across the road. I shouted across andpointed down to single yellows and asked "is it okay to park on these single yellows at this time?". The lady replied and said "yes it's fine" and gave me a thumbs up; she even smiled.


Simple question - did you park in the direction of the lane you were in or did you cross over facing the traffic and park. If you email Islington they will send the pics, which will determine this.

So all 3 CEOs were across the road? In that case they were probably all City of London and not Islington. I can't see Islington being bothered about people not in its remit.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:27
Post #1346501

PCN date 6/1/18
Clock is ticking, do not miss deadlines.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:29
Post #1346642

'They were across the road.'

So, as per DD, they were probably not CEOs of the relevant authority and so your grounds, if they existed, have gone.

In any event, IMO your chances of convincing an adjudicator that they gave you permission to park by virtue of a conversation across a busy road are the square root of s*d all.

Sorry if this is not what you want to hear.

Can we please return to the contravention, the lines, signs and your entry into the restricted area and park the CEOs.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:51
Post #1346647

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:29) *
'They were across the road.'

So, as per DD, they were probably not CEOs of the relevant authority and so your grounds, if they existed, have gone.

In any event, IMO your chances of convincing an adjudicator that they gave you permission to park by virtue of a conversation across a busy road are the square root of s*d all.

Sorry if this is not what you want to hear..........


Wasn't me wot suggested another authority.
But would make sense.

But I don't agree that this refutes or weakens the "acting on authority of.."
Asking some random people in flo yellow jackets and expect to be rejected but asked CEOs, in the street, with no clue that there is a border down the middle of the street...
Why should not an adjudicator believe and agree?
Can't see why across the road makes any difference either, not as though he was shouting across the M25.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 23:35
Post #1346656

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:51) *
But I don't agree that this refutes or weakens the "acting on authority of.."
Asking some random people in flo yellow jackets and expect to be rejected but asked CEOs, in the street, with no clue that there is a border down the middle of the street...
Why should not an adjudicator believe and agree?
Can't see why across the road makes any difference either, not as though he was shouting across the M25.



Well it may succeed at adjudication but without a statement from the City CEO (should it be them) it's pretty flimsy and would rely on turning up in person.

I can't see Islington accepting it.

Goswell Road is very busy and quite wide at that point too.

The CEOs could be Islington as there are shops there to buy refreshments.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 00:21
Post #1346661

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 23:35) *
........Well it may succeed at adjudication but without a statement from the City CEO (should it be them) it's pretty flimsy and would rely on turning up in person.

I can't see Islington accepting it.


The moment anyone uses that they relied on information from a CEO, either in full or in part, I think they have to plan on a personal hearing.
It is an easy claim to make, difficult to prove but adjudicators do put store in credibility.
If they believe, they will accept.
Council wouldn't even with a signed note from Sadiq Khan saying he said it was okay.

As I put earlier in thread, I was confused, thought I should be okay at that time of the day but hadn't seen signs or could see any locally.
However, I saw 3 CEOs across the road. Two men and a woman.
I called over and asked if I could park, pointing at my vehicle and the yellow line.
The female CEO called back, I think she said okay but smiled and gave me the thumbs up.
There is no doubt in my mind that she understood my request and affirmed that the yellow line restriction was not in operating times.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 07:38
Post #1346669


'...but hadn't seen signs or could see any locally.'


But why? They're either there or not. If they're not there, you would win on this point. But if they are, then why did you not see them?

Photos and facts, not reliance on 'I think she understood me..' which must fail at adjudication given the implausibility of this line. You saw and heard what you wanted and have no idea what the other CEOs heard or understood. For all you know, a thumbs up could and IMO would more likely mean that we're not the CEOs for that side of the road so you're safe from us, which is rather supported by the fact that you didn't receive the PCN until an hour later although you left your vehicle in what they would know was contravention. Why should they wait an hour if it was their manor? The facts don't fit.


You have until no later than 19th in which to make a risk-free challenge.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 09:00
Post #1346676

The whole point on reliance on a CEO is that people do get confused about signs and times, they miss signage that perhaps is clear.
So they ask a CEO who happens to be nearby.
And are entitled to rely on the answer.

It doesn't matter if signs are clear. Though if they are iffy as has been suggested, then this helps.
It doesn't matter if the CEO in question is from a different manor, how does Joe Public know this ?
It doesn't matter is the CEO was sticking her thumb up while thinking "That'll f*** him"
It is down to what the driver understood, their understanding.

All that matters is if an adjudicator believes.

I am not suggesting it as the only point but am saying do not ignore it.
Without the story, the line is simply I parked on a single yellow and ignored the possibility that the time was restricted.
That will go down a storm at adjudication.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 10:25
Post #1346695

That will go down a storm at adjudication.

Why are we so focused on adjudication? One step at a time. As as the authority's case becomes clear then we can look at the relative merits of their and the OP's case.

The OP hasn't even submitted a challenge yet and we're bereft of facts to say the least.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 11:13
Post #1346711

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 10:25) *
.....Why are we so focused on adjudication? ........


I always focus on adjudication as being the likely end result of challenges.
So try to tailor my advice on the long view, not only the short term.

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:20
Post #1346743

And me, but in a way which informs the challenge while still having the end game in mind.

But we can't here because we know s*d all about the circumstances.

OP, the photos, how you came to park there, your direction of approach.. the boring basics.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 20:23
Post #1351557

This may be of interest:-

2170562031

The appellant appeared before me today.

The allegation in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked on Boundary Road after the expiry of paid-for time.

The appellant explained that one side of Boundary Road fell within the City of Westminster the other side within the jurisdiction of the issuing council, Camden. The appellant said that Westminster's side of this street was clearly signed as falling within it. Camden's side was not. He provided supporting photographs.

This is an electric vehicle.

The appellant said that his business premises were in Westminster electric vehicles parking in that borough being permitted to do so for free for up to 4 hours provided a registration fee of 81 pence was paid upon parking. He had parked at 12:01 and made such payment via RingGo believing he had paid for a 4 hour parking session in Westminster and not Camden (where the aforementioned concession regarding electric vehicles did not apply) the bay not being signed as falling within Camden.

I acknowledged the submissions made by the council on this point but in the absence of signage identifying the location of this bay as being within Camden I was not satisfied that this restriction was clearly signed and I found for that reason that the contravention had not been proved.

Mick

Posted by: sainthalo Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:36
Post #1354847

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:20) *
OP, the photos, how you came to park there, your direction of approach.. the boring basics.


Have chase council to give outcome and will request their pictures.

Location of parking was before the white van in this picture facing same direction: https://goo.gl/maps/UnixyvfF1tA2

Car was parked in northerly direction as per white van in above shot.

I believe I drove into the area via the City side not Islington side.

I submitted a challenge and continue to await the council responding.

I understand I will probably need to give evidence at a tribunal to resolve this issue.

Please see attached screenshot, my car was parked at the asterisk I have doodled onto the screenshot.

Also note the controlled zone sign and the City of London signage

Please note that it was early evening on a Saturday and there was no traffic when I asked the three CEOs across the road - they could hear me and I could hear them.


Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:46
Post #1354857

QUOTE (sainthalo @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:36) *
I believe I drove into the area via the City side not Islington side.

Also note the controlled zone sign and the City of London signage



No, as I thought you drove right by the Islington CPZ sign and parked on the Islington side. That CPZ sign will no doubt have been changed as of last year.

Posted by: sainthalo Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 13:37
Post #1366027

CASE FINALLY RESOLVED! smile.gif


QUOTE
Penalty Charge Notice No. IZ07996979 Date of Issue 06/01/2018 at 18:58
Location of Contravention Goswell Road [Zone C]

Thank you for your emails regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which were recently received at this office.

The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

I have read your email and taken notes of your comments. The signs regarding parking times for this location are placed on the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) entry signs which you would have passed to enter this zone. In Zone C it states that no parking is permitted at any time Monday to Friday and Sunday from Midnight to 6am. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have parked correctly regardless of whom they ask. The nature of the Civil Enforcement Officer's duty is to issue PCNs against vehicles parked in contravention of the restrictions. It is not the CEO's duty to ensure the driver has parked correctly. The signage is clearly in place and is the primary source of information regarding the restrictions.

I appreciate you have submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. However, this is treated separately to your appeal. As such, the case would not remain on hold whilst you wait for a response.

I understand from your email you have queried why there is no CPZ entry sign located on Aldersgate Road. However, there is no such road. It is Aldersgate Street. I can confirm at the border between the City of London and Islington there is a CPZ entry sign confirming the restricted hours. Please see the attachment. As you can see the sign is located on Aldersgate Street, prior to entering Goswell Road.

For your information, in order to submit an appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA) you would need to submit formal representations in response to a Notice to Owner. Should your formal representations be rejected, then you would have the right to appeal to ETA.

Having reviewed the case, I am satisfied the contravention occurred. However, I am not satisfied with the information submitted by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO). As such, I have decided to cancel the PCN. Please note, future PCNs issued for the same contravention may be upheld.

As the ticket has now been cancelled, there is no need for you to take any further action.

Yours sincerely
A**** H****

Correspondence And Appeals Officer
Islington Parking Services
PO Box 2019, Pershore, WR10 9BN
Contact Islington: 0207 527 2000
Email: islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Web: www.islington.gov.uk

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 13:41
Post #1366031

Well that's a result I didn't expect - you obviously confused them enough with what a CEO who almost certainly wasn't Islington said...

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 18:00
Post #1366116

Bang on.
Well done.

I suspect your tale of the CEOs was thought plausible enough to make them think they would lose at adjudication.
Makes you wonder if CEOs from both sides are in the habit of giving duff information ?
Whatever, nice one.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)