PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Tunbridge Wells, poor signage
roythebus
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 16:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



We visited Tunbridge Wells on 1/7/2019 to pop into a specialist shop, parked in a side road. We found a long parking bay with only dotted lines about 50m longThere were no visible parking signs so assumed it was free parking. We came back to the car about 45 minutes later and found a PCN.

We were amazed to find a PCN, then wandered off up the road and found a sign right next to a wall on the corner of the street. It would not have been visible from a driver's point of view turning left into the road, nor from a pedestrian's point of view walking past it (as we did on the way to the shops). See attached photos of the PCN and the sign.

I reckon there should have been a repeater sign every 30m as recommended in TSGRD 13.21.3. As it is, all the signs along there are wall-mounted, and the lettering on the sign is ambiguous. An appeal will be lodges with these points. Can anyone spot any faults with the PCN?

I've loaded the pics to Imageshack but can't work out how to get them on here. tinypic doesn't seem to work. any ideas how to do it these days? It's ages since I posted on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 16:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 16:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Use imgbb.com or imgur.com and either post a link, or if you know how use the BB codes.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 16:41
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Imageshack doesn't tally up at all with what's on the PPP FAQ bit above. I don't know how to use BB codes. I'll try imgur.com

No good, i can't work out how to copy the photos from Imgur to here, it's all as clear as mud to me.


https://imgur.com/a/nePbHLT

I think I've got it sussed!

This post has been edited by roythebus: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 16:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 17:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



Sign isn't exactly hidden;
https://goo.gl/maps/WzyA8vbZqWbUzYwS9

to get to the shops and back you had to have walked past it twice. What do you consider is ambiguous about the wording
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 17:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't see how the PCN complies with regulation 3(2)(b)(ii), so there's a technical appeal to be made.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 23:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



I wouldn't think of looking on the wall for a parking sign sign. i expect it to be by the roadside. As a first time visitor to the area I doubt I'll be going back there if that's the way they treat visitors.

After I saw the sign, which was only after I saw the PCN on the car, I looked for a parking ticket machine as I already had done when parked, but no signage or machines visible. No information about getting a Permit B or where to buy a parking ticket. I'm not a mind reader. smile.gif


cp8759, what's the technical appeal wording? I need to get the appeal in by Sunday.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 07:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



First off no idea whether the LA is reasonable or obstinate.

The householder at Number 1 has done nobody any favours by painting the post the same colour as their house. Talk about camouflage. This is a mitigating factor as it had the desired effect of making the post less obtrusive. Are the LA aware, are they content with this? If you are looking for a post then it would be easy to overlook it.

Secondly, the number of signs in the bay seems inadequate for the length of the bay. Add to that the disguised metal post issue, it is not unexpected you might be fooled into thinking it was free. If you were the fourth car in the bay, the nearest immediately visible post is 5 vehicle lengths away.

In an ideal world, the LA could cancel and seek to have the paint removed. If they are hard faced they can uphold.

The only other way out is whether there are issues with PCN or NtO construction that is non-compliant. Others will advise.

If not, then take the discount.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 07:48
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,416
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Signs are perfectly fine.

1 short bay, 1 sign in the centre.

1 longer bay, 2 signs.

Any argument based on the location, style, colour, shape or smell of the signs is ******* and would IMO be considered frivolous. The motorist just didn't look.

Had they done so, they would have seen(as far as GSV shows) a different restriction from the one alleged: neither is resident's or shared use, which is the alleged contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 09:26
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:48) *
Signs are perfectly fine.

1 short bay, 1 sign in the centre.

1 longer bay, 2 signs.

Any argument based on the location, style, colour, shape or smell of the signs is ******* and would IMO be considered frivolous. The motorist just didn't look.

Had they done so, they would have seen(as far as GSV shows) a different restriction from the one alleged: neither is resident's or shared use, which is the alleged contravention.


I didn't mention signs, I mentioned the post being painted. This had the effect of it no longer being obvious. That isn't anywhere near frivolous which only relates to an appeal to the Tribunal. If the LA is reasonable then they may accept the challenge as a mitigating factor.

If the first sign is made hard to pin point then the visible sign post at the far end may be considered to be inadequate to cover the whole bay.

There is nothing to lose in putting it forward to the LA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 12:03
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,822
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



HCA has given you one of the challenge grounds The contravention cited did not occur. You parked in a permit only bay, not resident of shared use so the contravention should be 16

https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/

And CP gives you the other that the council have not complied with regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeals regs

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i) those representations will be considered;

(ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.


Can you see the emboldened bit, or something that can be construed as such


--------------------
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
roythebus
post Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 08:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Thanks, I'll compose a suitable appeal later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 11:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Here's a copy of the initial appeal sent:

Visiting the town for the first time, found a space in what I now know is Kirkdale road. Looked up and down the road for parking restriction notices or payment machines, none visible. Parked, went shopping and came back to find a PCN on the car. Not really encouraging to go back to the town for more shopping or any other visits. I eventually found a rather confusing sign on a pole next to a house, the pole was camouflaged by being painted the same colour as the house. Had the pole been painted a different colour to the house it would have been rather more obvious to a visitor. There were no visible repeater signs in the middle of what is a rather lengthy bay. According to TSRGD there should be a repeater sign if the bay is more than 30m long.

It is unclear from the sign whether it is a mixed use bay or permit parking only. Assuming it is permit parking only the contravention shown on the PCN is incorrect and the contravention did not occur.

It would be helpful if you would therefore allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.

I'm out working the rest of today so won't be able to use internet until tomorrow (it's difficult to use it when I'm bus driving).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 12:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,822
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Don't send that Roy, it will dam you all the way to adjudication. You accept you found the sign, even though it was in camouflage, and says but permit holders only cannot be construed as not sure if it was shared use or not,. So all you have done is admitted the contravention


--------------------
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
roythebus
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 16:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



A bit late, I had to go out to work just after typing the response. i only found the sign after looking carefully after receiving the PCN. We both looked for signs before parking and didn't see any. i also only had until yesterday to get the response in unless the 14 day rule included today.

That's the trouble with working weekend..no time to spare to do things. Thanks for all your help, let's see what happens.

I'm totally pee'ed off with this country at the moment, but that's for the flame pit.


This post has been edited by roythebus: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 16:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 18:45
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You would have been better of forgetting about the 14 day period and submitting a stronger representation, but what's done is done.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 19:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



When I challenges a Folkestone ticket a few months ago I found the telephone adjudicator very calming and helpful. I won that appeal.

I haven't used all my powder on this one yet. smile.gif The pics on the PCN on the TW council website show the camouflaged post. Had the post been a different colour I would probably have noticed it and the sign. It was only after getting the PCN I went back for another look. even then I walked past it once to look at the bay at the end of the road where the sign for that bay was clearly visible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nextdoor
post Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 21:25
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



QUOTE (roythebus @ Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 20:11) *
The pics on the PCN on the TW council website show the camouflaged post. Had the post been a different colour I would probably have noticed it and the sign. It was only after getting the PCN I went back for another look. even then I walked past it once to look at the bay at the end of the road where the sign for that bay was clearly visible.


Have I got this straight? You parked in a clearly marked bay, so looked but couldn't see a sign. Then went to the shops and returned to the car, found the pcn, walked back to the 1 Hour no return within 2 hours bay and only on going back to the car finally saw a sign which you had now passed 3 times without seeing it, based purely on the fact that the pole was the same colour as the wall.

Personally I can't see this succeeding at adjudication (although stranger things have happened) I wouldn't even think about risking the discount.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 16 Jul 2019 - 10:13
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,952
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (nextdoor @ Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 22:25) *
Personally I can't see this succeeding at adjudication (although stranger things have happened) I wouldn't even think about risking the discount.

For sure, but the regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) flaw is there and that can win. Once roythebus's representation has been rejected we can put this case back on track.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Wed, 17 Jul 2019 - 20:26
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Thanks, let's see how the council treat it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 18:51
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,397
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Well, the email from TWBC appeared today refusing my appeal. So when I get a bit of time later I'll copy and post it on here and see what the good people on here can come up with. I'll have to wait for the NTO before any further letters can be sent to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Saturday, 20th July 2019 - 18:57
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.