Parked in a restricted road... poor/confusing signage Options

[gpk]

Hi, grateful for any thoughts on this case.



My opinion is that the signage is poor, causing confusion as to the restricted hours applicable to the single yellow line in question. I was parked on a Saturday during the afternoon. This is one of the pictures taken by the CEO, from the "top" end of the road in question:


I estimate the yellow sign is a good 70m from my car which is in the distance on the left side of the road. The sign could not be seen from where I parked and it took some time walking around to locate it. GSV shows that a lamp post close to where I parked used to have a yellow sign but it is now missing. There are no further yellow signs on this stretch of the road, most of which is given over to residents' bays, although there are a two more short sections of single yellow line further down (without signage). The other side of the road has only residents' bays and double yellow. The side road next to where I parked (can just be seen on the right of my car) also has a stretch of single yellow and the yellow sign applicable to that could be seen from where I parked. That section of road is only restricted Mon-Fri.

On leaving the area last night I did notice other examples of poorly maintained signage. It seems to me that there is little incentive for the Council to fulfil its responsibilities to maintain signage since by improving the clarity of its signage it would surely reduce its income from PCNs, i.e. costs would rise and income would fall. Certainly I would have moved my car to the side road opposite if the now missing yellow sign had still been present on the adjacent lamp post. I find the lack of attention to proper clear signage frustrating.

On crossing into other Boroughs on the way home the higher density of signage for parking restrictions was noticeable - e.g. typically signs every 20-30m in my own Borough and sometimes 10m or less. So you'd never be more than 15m from a sign.

Comments more than welcome!
Thanks.

This post has been edited by gpk: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 22:55

[Advertisement]

[Incandescent]

Thanks, and yes that makes sense. I guess I'm naive or old-fashioned but I am still surprised at the way a public service is carrying on. Just who do they think they are serving?!!!

The Council have misquoted the regulations I think, they say they have "not been notified" about the Appeal to the Adjudicator whereas that page you linked says "A Notice of Rejection has been served and within 28 days, beginning with the date of service of that notice, no appeal to the adjudicator has been made". It certainly has been made and I have been notified of the hearing date.

The whole process does feel unfair. They don't properly consider my representations. They respond with false information about a matter of fact. They issue a Charge Certificate without due reason. I feel I have the whole force of the law hanging over me, if I miss a step then..... But presumably it is just a poorly programmed machine that is spewing out things like the Charge Certificates. OK I have statutory grounds but I'd rather not have to make a Witness Statement etc. The whole thing is a huge waste of time and energy. It's the way that they keep on going that is worrisome. Anyway that's all off-topic I suppose.

Will post the CC later. Need to eat first! Thank goodness for this forum!

It's all about getting the cash in, traffic management has nothing to do with it. So they game the system to their own advantage.

[gpk]

Here's the Charge Cert. Given they have issued it early (without due cause), does this constitute another PI? It's the grounds for issue no. 2 that looks wrong (and that presumably they are relying upon): "we have not been notified of an appeal having been made".

[stamfordman]

I don't know the mechanism by which the authority is informed that an appeal to the tribunal has been made. So wouldn't be Richmond's fault if they've not been notified.

[gpk]

OK well the moral of this bit of the story is not to overreact. I phoned Richmond who said they had no record of my Appeal on their system and advised phoning London Tribunals. I phoned them and they said they would contact Richmond to notify them of my appeal and have the Charge Cert. revoked. On the face of it, this part is sorted.

[PASTMYBEST]

OK well the moral of this bit of the story is not to overreact. I phoned Richmond who said they had no record of my Appeal on their system and advised phoning London Tribunals. I phoned them and they said they would contact Richmond to notify them of my appeal and have the Charge Cert. revoked. On the face of it, this part is sorted.

It is for the tribunal to inform the council of an appeal. If they did then its an easy win if they didn't then the CC will be voided and an appeal will proceed If you get an order for recovery it must be dealt with but in the meantime adhere to the tribunals directions

[stamfordman]

Did tribunal say they had notified?

[gpk]

Thanks, yes the letter from the tribunal notifying me of my appeal (and sent to me by email) dated 5 Oct says "We have sent a copy of your appeal to the Enforcement Authority". When speaking to the tribunal staff the impression I got - just from their manner/tone of voice really - was that this situation does occur from time to time. And also when speaking to Richmond Council.

This post has been edited by gpk: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:47

[gpk]

Quick update. Appeal is next week (Weds 7th). Council is contesting, I am reasonably confident nonetheless. Not sure I am at liberty to say much about their case? Nor do I need to really - as I say, I'm not overly concerned.

CC has been rescinded.

Will keep you updated and thanks again for all the help.

This post has been edited by gpk: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 23:47

[stamfordman]

Quick update. Appeal is next week (Weds 7th). Council is contesting, I am reasonably confident nonetheless. Not sure I am at liberty to say much about their case? Nor do I need to really - as I say, I'm not overly concerned.

CC has been rescinded.

No, you can post their evidence pack here. You should do so so we can see if anything new has been introduced.

Their issue of a CC is something to bring up.

[hcandersen]

Then get ready to be disappointed.

You need to prepare yourself. And the first thing you do is to tell us your grounds of appeal and post their case summary.

The CC was not premature, it was served(which is the operative issue) on 12 Oct which is perfectly correct being more than 35 days after the NOR was served. It was also issued 9 days after you registered your appeal online.

The issue of PI has to be addressed. Adjudications are determined on the balance of probabilities so, when do LT's records show they notified the authority? Have you even asked them? Get a copy.

A PI which is discovered, challenged, investigated and rectified is STILL a PI, it doesn't cease to be one simply because an authority's incompetence was discovered and challenged.

[gpk]

@hcandersen: Thanks, I will post their case summary tomorrow. It reasserts their previous assertion that I was parked approx 20m from the sign in question (on lamppost 007), but provides no evidence to support this assertion.

My grounds of appeal are 2xPIs (see above) plus my measurement of the distance at 56m (which meant that the was sign not visible from where I was parked), supported by quite a bit of photographic evidence.

I received the Council's evidence pack today, 70-odd pages I should think. Interestingly, the evidence checklist includes a tick against "H Map/Site Report" (a tick means "We have enclosed the following types of evidence"), but this piece of evidence was missing. The envelope itself was open when it arrived. I don't think that evidence H had fallen out from the middle of the pack though as it is also missing from the evidence they have uploaded to the LT website.

The issue of PI has to be addressed

I'm not 100% clear where you are coming from but I take it you are thinking there could be another PI here, relating to the CC, to add to the collection?

[hcandersen]

'I'm not 100% clear where you are coming from...'

Because you hadn't posted your grounds of appeal. Don't presume we know just because a topic has been discussed at length.

The issue of evidence is key and you must post their summary.

If they have relied on a sign, and by extension its proximity to your car, but have not posted evidence to this effect, then you must stress your measurements.

But it's the case summary which is the start, and this is not 70 pages.

[gpk]

Thanks! Case summary follows (redactions have come out blank rather than black). They refer to Evidence C which consists of the original PCN and photos that I posted previously, plus the CEO's notes which don't shed any light on anything to me.



This post has been edited by gpk: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 09:33

[cp8759]

So the council's own case summary asserts that the single yellow line is within a CPZ, you have photos of the CPZ sign showing what the restricted hours are. However they assert the sign they rely on was 20 metres from your car. You need strong evidence to show the distance between your car and the sign they rely on. A quick measurement on Google maps view shows the distance is approximately 73 metres.

Distance measurement:



The red line on the left shows the western edge of the block of flats in line with lamppost 007, where the sign the council relies on is: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4759021,-0....3312!8i6656

The red line on the right shows the lamppost where you were parked (lamppost 009): https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4757285,-0....3312!8i6656

Take screenshots of these two Google Street View pages and submit them to the tribunal together with my Google Maps measurement.

[stamfordman]

Plus as we've noted several times, that sign is in a chicane, where you wouldn't park unless you were potty.

This to me is a clear case of a rogue yellow line that either should be signed in several places or put into the CPZ with the part by the chicane made into double yellows.

[PASTMYBEST]

Plus as we've noted several times, that sign is in a chicane, where you wouldn't park unless you were potty.

This to me is a clear case of a rogue yellow line that either should be signed in several places or put into the CPZ with the part by the chicane made into double yellows.

See paragraph 6.34 page 50

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf

[stamfordman]

6.34 Signs, other than the “no waiting on verge or footway” sign to diagram 637.1 (see para 6.37), should be erected parallel to the kerb, facing the carriageway and sited at approximately 60 m intervals (on each side where the restriction applies to both sides of the road). This will normally be achieved by fixing the signs on every lamp column within the restricted length of road. Where there are no lamp columns or other suitable mounting points, posts will need to be erected. Providing conspicuity is not compromised, signs may be mounted at the back of the footway on posts, walls or railings. This is likely to be preferable where the footway is narrow. In environmentally sensitive areas where the post is sited at the back of the footway, consideration might be given to painting it a similar colour to the adjacent building (direction 41 allows a post to be any single colour, including its natural colour).

[gpk]

Thansk all, that's very much along the lines I have used to make my case.

@stamfordman: thanks, good to see those specs for signage, 6.35 also looks useful since the yellow line comes to an end at the residents' bays but there is no sign at that end of the single yellow (a sign on lamppost 009 would fulfil the requirements both of 6.34 and 6.35).

I can PM a Dropbox link to the complete evidence pack if anyone wants to see more including my submission.

@cp8759: Did you get that distance calculation from Google Maps? Didn't know you could do that - looks very useful. I was actually parked slightly further west than you have shown, on the other side of the driveway (outside no. 22) and where in the satellite view there is a light coloured car parked with a sunroof.

I my evidence I included several photos of this location and the road/pavement leading all the way up to the sign. Which I measured with a tape measure. From the Council's photos and mine it is clear that I was parked outside no. 22 and not, as they say, 20m from the sign.

@hcandersen: I spoke to LT and they said that when they sent the confirmation of my appeal to me by email (on 5 Oct, for appeal made and received on 3 Oct), their system would automatically have sent a notification to the EA. This notification was not in the form of an email so LT are unable to provide me with a copy. The notification would have shown in the system the EA use to manage their cases. A user at the EA end would see a notification and when clicking through in the system it would give details of my appeal. I asked if the problem frequently happens of notifications not being dealt with and was told that while it does happen it is infrequent.

Thanks again.

[hcandersen]

I refer the adjudicator to paras 3 and 4 of the council's case summary, which I have paraphrased ( I hope not unfairly) as follows. The emphases are mine:

Para. 3
A single yellow line indicates a waiting restriction which is conveyed either by a local traffic sign or CPZ entry signs.

Para. 4
The location where the vehicle was parked was marked by a single yellow line whch is in a Controlled Parking Zone marked by zone entry signs.


This is the basis of my defence in that the authority's case rests wholly on me, and presumably all motorists, ignoring the clear entry signs and when within the zone looking for other meanings to attach to single yellow lines. In my case a traffic sign situated ** metres behind my car ( not ** as stated by the authority)

While on the one hand the authority state that restrictions are conveyed by 'either' a traffic sign plate 'or' CPZ signs, they then choose to place them both together and expect the motorist to choose.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

I respectfully request that for the reasons above and those in my reps and appeal the adjudicator makes the authority go hungry on this occasion.

[gpk]

Haha, I think you are wasted here. Well no, that would undervalue the service you provide in these forums, but...

Anyway, the Authority's eating habits aside, is an approach of this kind something that an Adjudicator would appreciate or might they find it irritating/flippant? I ask partly because I do sometimes accidentally come across as a little flippant, which I have discovered to my cost. (OK, would make a point of not doing so for the Appeal.)

This post has been edited by gpk: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 18:05