Contesting a PCN 21 Poor signage? Works were finished! |
Contesting a PCN 21 Poor signage? Works were finished! |
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:39
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Hello and thank you for reading my post.
The bay was suspended from 08:30 on 17/01/2018 to 18:30 on 18/01/2018 I have attached an image of the signage I have three questions/ points I would like clarified before making my appeal: 1) Is there anything in the signage which is improper or invalidates the suspension? (For example, the A4 paper stuck to it) 2) I was ticketed at 17:34 on 18/01/2018. It was dark and there were no other signs apart from the one I posted. In fairness, I did park right next to it but honestly did not see it. There were no cones or suggestion that any work was being carried out or any other indication that the bay was closed; apart from the single suspension sign the bay looked as it always does. There was another signpost which did not have anything affixed to it. I was categorically unaware the bay was suspended and had it been made more prominent that I would have seen it. Moreover, every bay was in use and every vehicle was issued with a PCN (I have pictures). I realise that this might not be a very strong argument but all the same I feel that it highlights the predatory and overzealous nature of Islington Council. If people were aware the bays were suspended they would not park there. It might be cynical but it certainly appears to me that they could have done more to publicise the suspension however this would have been in direct conflict with their ability to generate PCN revenue. 3) The works had been finished, so why was the bay still suspended? Is this legal? Surely the aim of the council should be to restore the road to how it is normally used and to minimise disruption? There is a thread here which mentions a similar appeal The Secretary of State) directs that... the authorised sign may not be erected ...after the sign has ceased to be needed at that location. I tried looking in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Sections 64 and 65 Authorisation of Traffic Signs and Special Directions, on legislation.gov.uk but could not see those words anywhere. I really appreciate you taking the time to read this! This post has been edited by happyveryhappy: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:46 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:49
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,308 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
As usual, for best advice post up both sides of the PCN, any Council phtos and a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
Try this: Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method: Some are having problems with Tinypic at he moment.. try Flickr, where the BBcodes are concealed behind the curly arrow (click on it) for sharing. Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0 for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems. Thera are other sites, such as Flickr, which enable you to paste the BBCodes into your post here. STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [ ] ), and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post. Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space. Redact/obscure pers name, address, PCN number and reg.mark. LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:00
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Thank you for the pointers!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5543863,-...3312!8i6656 Couldn't get the images to embed so I've linked to them on imgur: PCN Front PCN Rear This post has been edited by happyveryhappy: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:07 |
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:29
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
This adjudicator found that your reasons are valid
2160371376 Adjudicator Edward Houghton Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons The Appellant did not attend the hearing. The photographs in this case are of such poor quality that it is impossible to be satisfied as to the wording of the sign, that it complied with Secretary of State’s authorisation, and that the vehicle was in such a position as to be in breach of its terms. In any event I find the Appellant’s evidence that the works in question had been completed to be persuasive, and it is therefore probable that the presence of the sign was in breach of the requirement in Part 2 Para 6(2) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that temporary signs should not remain in place for longer than is needed. As I am unable to be satisfied the prohibition relied on was correctly and clearly indicated the Appeal must be allowed. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:40
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Thank you so much for your input!
My reply to the council is as follows: I am writing to appeal against the above PCN issued at 17:34 on Thursday 18th January 2018. The bay was suspended from 08:30 on 17/01/2018 to 18:30 on 18/01/2018 There were no cones or suggestion that any work was being carried out. It was also dark. The works had been finished, so why was the bay still suspended? As a result, I believe the presence of the sign was in breach of the requirement in Part 2 Para 6(2) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that temporary signs should not remain in place for longer than is needed. You can access it here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...20160362_en.pdf I have other concerns with the PCN but am not mentioning them here as I believe this point alone to be sufficient in my defence. In light of the above, I am urging you to quash the PCN. I look forward to hearing from you. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:30
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Forget the last bit. You might argue that the PCN does not identify the enforcement authority, but as it shows its from Islington it would be a long shot
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:46
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
Are you referring to: I have other concerns with the PCN but am not mentioning them here as I believe this point alone to be sufficient in my defence. If so, I said that because the signage was inadequately displayed and am not sure if they are allowed to stick on a piece of white A4 paper on top of the signage. Cheers! |
|
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 08:26
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you referring to: I have other concerns with the PCN but am not mentioning them here as I believe this point alone to be sufficient in my defence. If so, I said that because the signage was inadequately displayed and am not sure if they are allowed to stick on a piece of white A4 paper on top of the signage. Cheers! It reads like you have issues with the PCN not the sign. Regardless here is the authorisation foe the sign. The A4 sheet is standard practice http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2074.pdf -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 10:04
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Thanks!
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 23:50
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Forget the last bit. You might argue that the PCN does not identify the enforcement authority, but as it shows its from Islington it would be a long shot I wouldn't bother with the EA point to be honest, the rear of the PCN says that to challenge the PCN "...you should write to London Borough of Islington at Islington Parking Services...", I suspect most adjudicators would take the stance that this conveys the identity of the enforcement authority. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:03
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Thanks for your input
|
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 20:21
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
|
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 20:34
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Not a terrible response. You must decide if you want to carry on or not. I think I would, but would also argue compelling reasons and or de minimis as it was close to the expiry of the suspension. The councils reasoning falls apart given this
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 21:01
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
There's no way a contractor would carry out tree works in the dark. Perhaps they were kipping on a branch like the birdies.
|
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 22:33
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
Not a terrible response. You must decide if you want to carry on or not. I think I would, but would also argue compelling reasons and or de minimis as it was close to the expiry of the suspension. The councils reasoning falls apart given this Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me. I am definitely considering continuing the appeal. I have a few questions: 1) I am not sure what you mean by "compelling reasons and or de minimis". Could you expand these thoughts a bit please? 2) Also, you mentioned a case 2160371376 Adjudicator Edward Houghton Appeal decision Appeal allowed I have googled this and can't find any reference. Is there a database this is on/ more information about this case that I can cite so the people at the council can take a look? 3) I feel his "uncertainty" argument is illogical/ weak because making the bays available quicker (i.e. when the works are completed) does not increase uncertainty; rather it helps both the general public and the residents of the street by making more parking available. 4) He doesn't seem to have addressed my point about "Part 2 Para 6(2) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that temporary signs should not remain in place for longer than is needed." Many thanks This post has been edited by happyveryhappy: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 22:34 |
|
|
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 23:21
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I have googled this and can't find any reference. Is there a database this is on/ more information about this case that I can cite so the people at the council can take a look? There is a database, https://londontribunals.org.uk/ under "Statutory Registers" -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:29
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
There is a database, https://londontribunals.org.uk/ under "Statutory Registers" Thanks! I tried putting the reference number in but it didn't return anything. Do you know if the records only go back a certain length of time? |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 14:36
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
There is a database, https://londontribunals.org.uk/ under "Statutory Registers" Thanks! I tried putting the reference number in but it didn't return anything. Do you know if the records only go back a certain length of time? Dont know what you are doing, I copied post 4 direct from the register, and just checked it is still there. Open the link click statutory register click search the environment and traffic adjudication part (this is first) not congestion charging Enter the number in case ref field (first field) enter then open the link -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 15:19
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Islington website won't let you pay at the moment or view photographs of a contravention In fact it has seriously crashed.
Anyway, the OP doesn't have to pay for a bit so it might be worth uploading the Council's photos (when available). For the reasons given, the contravention is questionable if the work had finished. Indeed which trees were lopped? There's only a small one at the end of the bay. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 17:24
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,254 |
There is a database, https://londontribunals.org.uk/ under "Statutory Registers" Thanks! I tried putting the reference number in but it didn't return anything. Do you know if the records only go back a certain length of time? Dont know what you are doing, I copied post 4 direct from the register, and just checked it is still there. Open the link click statutory register click search the environment and traffic adjudication part (this is first) not congestion charging Enter the number in case ref field (first field) enter then open the link Thanks, got it now |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:11 |