PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Red Route PCN - 1 hour time allowed within restrcited time, CEO took picture of signage of another road
theeagleman
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 18:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Hope everyone is keeping well and safe in these times!

Think TFL are getting desparate.

Anyways the driver parked in the following place:

https://goo.gl/maps/QfEwXRjgoKE2wHFZ8

It has clear 1 hour parking in place within those restriction times which the driver thought was the case (see below).


Car tyre was mainly in red line part

So anyways PCN was given by the CEO, but the signage image taken was from the high street itself! not where the car was parked.






The above photo was taken after driver moved car into the right parking zone correctly (as you can see there is quite a difference in time stamps)


GSV of sign that CEO took.
https://goo.gl/maps/gJqMQYhhCzGEVBzAA




A short GIF of video of the ticket and signange



Any suggestions of how to appeal this in a nice manner without losing my rag.

Thank you again in advance!

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Thu, 21 May 2020 - 19:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 18:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nextdoor
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 18:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



QUOTE
Car tyre was hanging in the single red line a bit.


More than a bit. The first CEO's picture shows your front wheel parked level with the grey street cabinet. So nine-tenths of your car was out of the Red Route parking bay.

Bang to rights IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 19:02
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Yes you are right, its certainly more than a bit. Anyways there was no signage to indicate what the restriction times were on that road beside that sign of the first one, which was thought accompany all of it and it was was reasonable assumption to believe so.. in the absense of any other sign.

Usually a stool takes up that space, judging from previous GSV years, hence for that particular spot there is no clear restriction in place.

Is it reasonable to have a restriction in place but with the signage on a an adjacent road and it may not even apply to the place car was parked?

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Thu, 21 May 2020 - 19:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 20:47
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,725
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



If you look carefully at GSV, the bay ends with a double-dashed line out from the kerb, then there is a separate bay with no sign, but with a single red line. Opposite is the applicable sign, but it cannot be read on GSV. There is no sign by the actual bay, and one could argue that the sign on the opposite sign doesn't apply. The signage here is pretty confusing, but typical of London. Whether you want to take them to London Tribunals is your choice, but the red line in that bay gives notice of a No Stopping restriction at certain times of the day. This will be on the unreadable notice I suspect. You have to convince an adjudicator and with the full PCN penalty of £130 in play too. IMHO the odds are not good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 21:32
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,392
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



We have seen these types of bay before, it is a market traders bay. People have won on the confusion caused, by lack of signage


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 21:52
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,707
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It has clear 1 hour parking in place within those restriction times which the driver thought was the case (see below).

Nonsense.

The Red Route restriction has continued from the main road into a Red Route side road. The driver was parked on the red line. They then walked ahead of their car into a parking place and found a sign. By walking into this place they'd crossed the parking threshold: that sign had NOTHING to do with anything outside the parking place, which is where the car was located.

The so-called parking place where the car was located is nothing of the sort, it is numbered and therefore more than likely a street trader's pitch which is operational outside the RR restriction.

Of course the CEO took a photo of a 'different' sign, this is the one which applied: the restriction being continuous from the main road which is where their sign was located, at a guess.

The 'driver' was subject to a restriction sign they had not passed when they parked - that'll teach them to stop parking on the wrong side of the road, or will it? I think the jury's out on this one.

Had the 'driver' been travelling in the right direction they would have seen a sign ending the local council's control followed immediately by a white lined box. This is standard for RR where possibly limited parking is permitted throughout the whole of the restricted period. It is white, not red. So, although the red line starts after the box, this is permitted.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes...#on-this-page-0

The 'driver' was parked on a restricted red line and could not rely on the permissive parking within the box because in the main they were not there.

Don't risk the discount on your argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 22:44
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 21:47) *
The signage here is pretty confusing, but typical of London. Whether you want to take them to London Tribunals is your choice, but the red line in that bay gives notice of a No Stopping restriction at certain times of the day. This will be on the unreadable notice I suspect. You have to convince an adjudicator and with the full PCN penalty of £130 in play too. IMHO the odds are not good.


I dont think the driver has anything to lose, job is gone, car is about to be gone, so whats the worst that could happen? So they probably are prepared to go all the way. The odds are already stacked against them in life (as they feel), so tihs is a minor blip



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 22:32) *
We have seen these types of bay before, it is a market traders bay. People have won on the confusion caused, by lack of signage



I would agree with that as well as incandescent's sentiment.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 22:56
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 22:52) *
Of course the CEO took a photo of a 'different' sign, this is the one which applied: the restriction being continuous from the main road which is where their sign was located, at a guess.

The 'driver' was subject to a restriction sign they had not passed when they parked - that'll teach them to stop parking on the wrong side of the road, or will it? I think the jury's out on this one.

Had the 'driver' been travelling in the right direction they would have seen a sign ending the local council's control followed immediately by a white lined box. This is standard for RR where possibly limited parking is permitted throughout the whole of the restricted period. It is white, not red. So, although the red line starts after the box, this is permitted.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes...#on-this-page-0

The 'driver' was parked on a restricted red line and could not rely on the permissive parking within the box because in the main they were not there.

Don't risk the discount on your argument.


The driver turned left from the main road, so no way would they have seen that sign. Also is it reasonable to assume that they should check a different road for such restrictions? completely understandable if RR sign was on the road where the PCN was issued and would have no arguments against that, had that been the case.
Furthermore it is proably irrelvant and clutching at straws but there is a break in the red line which has since paved over with the blue cycle highway.

Also it is market traders bay which was apparent after and only when looking into GSV did that become obvious. Its not often a small market trader bay will be lodged in a location like that, and how is the common driver supposed to be wary of that. I have seen similar market trader bays in and around london with restriction cleary placed above the bay seperately.


Would any of you be so kind as to draft an appeal which i expect will be rejected and then take this forward to adjudication and test the lack of clear signage case.

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Thu, 21 May 2020 - 22:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 07:01
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,707
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



What lack of clear signage?

In the direction of travel the sequence is end of controlled parking zone ( local authority) immediately followed by a permitted but limited(1 hour, no return within 2 hours) RR bay marked with white lines as required followed by a red route line.

The times of the RR are on the sign in the parking place. This acts under the overall red route restriction sign, a full version of which is the one in the main road. (and this applies either side of Letchworth, so no jot there, I'm afraid).

So, where's the sign confusion?

so no way would they have seen that sign.

They did see a sign which informed them of the RR restrictions, you said so yourself. The problem is they did not understand its significance. This cannot be laid at the feet of TfL, I'm afraid. The 'driver' just did not understand the meaning and effect of the RR parking place, but the sign is there. A big RR sign in a parking place can only really be interpreted one way. And do not forget, the car WAS ACTUALLY PARKED on the red line anyway, therefore as with a regular yellow line, the driver was obliged to look for the regulating sign and if they did not think the one in the parking place was clear or applied then their obligation was to follow the line around the corner into the main road until they found the sign. After all, you say they turned from that road which implied they were already aware of the prevailing RR restriction - which if truth's known is probably why they turned into the side road in the first place i.e. to get away from a restriction of which they were already fully aware.


Also is it reasonable to assume that they should check a different road for such restrictions? completely understandable if RR sign was on the road where the PCN was issued and would have no arguments against that, had that been the case.

As above, they didn't have to. I think all the necessary clues were there. So as you now say that you have no arguments, it would be sensible to pay no more than the discount.

I dont think the driver has anything to lose

That might be true. Liability lies with the registered keeper. Is this them? If not, then who is? Life can get messy and more expensive if intermediary registered keepers are involved e.g. hire/lease companies, employers etc.

I see no defence as regards the contravention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:27
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,725
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Well, HCA has taken you through the detail, but it is quite clear that the potential for confusion is ther. The maximum payable if taken to London Tribunals would be the full £130 penalty, no more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 10:13
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:01) *
What lack of clear signage?

In the direction of travel the sequence is end of controlled parking zone ( local authority) immediately followed by a permitted but limited(1 hour, no return within 2 hours) RR bay marked with white lines as required followed by a red route line.

The times of the RR are on the sign in the parking place. This acts under the overall red route restriction sign, a full version of which is the one in the main road. (and this applies either side of Letchworth, so no jot there, I'm afraid).

So, where's the sign confusion?

so no way would they have seen that sign.

They did see a sign which informed them of the RR restrictions, you said so yourself. The problem is they did not understand its significance. This cannot be laid at the feet of TfL, I'm afraid. The 'driver' just did not understand the meaning and effect of the RR parking place, but the sign is there. A big RR sign in a parking place can only really be interpreted one way. And do not forget, the car WAS ACTUALLY PARKED on the red line anyway, therefore as with a regular yellow line, the driver was obliged to look for the regulating sign and if they did not think the one in the parking place was clear or applied then their obligation was to follow the line around the corner into the main road until they found the sign. After all, you say they turned from that road which implied they were already aware of the prevailing RR restriction - which if truth's known is probably why they turned into the side road in the first place i.e. to get away from a restriction of which they were already fully aware.


Also is it reasonable to assume that they should check a different road for such restrictions? completely understandable if RR sign was on the road where the PCN was issued and would have no arguments against that, had that been the case.

As above, they didn't have to. I think all the necessary clues were there. So as you now say that you have no arguments, it would be sensible to pay no more than the discount.

I dont think the driver has anything to lose

That might be true. Liability lies with the registered keeper. Is this them? If not, then who is? Life can get messy and more expensive if intermediary registered keepers are involved e.g. hire/lease companies, employers etc.

I see no defence as regards the contravention.


The othe rside of Letchworth has a dropped kerb in place where the red line runs along then its the same RR restriction as the driver initially thought. Parking on the other side of Letchworth red line regardless of time would have incurred a PCN for obstruction of footpath/crossing.
Initiially they did think the red line does apply to the sign they thought, because there was no other sign on that side of the the road. They did not travel in the direction of the red line back to the main road, so did not think to check (got out of car and walked further down letchworth to drop some food items to a vulnerable/isolating household, which holds no significance anyway). The photo which the CEO took, the driver was not aware of until checking the TFL PCN and images taken by CEO which showed it was the main road RR sign which was the actual one that was in effect.

The car is private, and the RK has allowed the driver to use it prior to lockdown - so its been in their possession for last couple months. RK will take car back in next 2 weeks.

Also even the discount is not even payable at this stage. Literally its the last thing on their mind. So I said I will happy to take on this case for them. Even if (and very likely will be the case) it does fail at adjudication, it will be £130. The issue at hand here is that if £65 is a stuggle to pay now, £130 will be pretty much a no go anyways from their perspective. What will happen after that, if they are unable to pay?

Your comments and odds being not great were explained, with no avail.







QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 09:27) *
Well, HCA has taken you through the detail, but it is quite clear that the potential for confusion is ther. The maximum payable if taken to London Tribunals would be the full £130 penalty, no more.


Hence, happy to take this as test case to adjudication for confusion - which is evidently clear.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 10:17
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,392
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (theeagleman @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 11:13) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 08:01) *
What lack of clear signage?

In the direction of travel the sequence is end of controlled parking zone ( local authority) immediately followed by a permitted but limited(1 hour, no return within 2 hours) RR bay marked with white lines as required followed by a red route line.

The times of the RR are on the sign in the parking place. This acts under the overall red route restriction sign, a full version of which is the one in the main road. (and this applies either side of Letchworth, so no jot there, I'm afraid).

So, where's the sign confusion?

so no way would they have seen that sign.

They did see a sign which informed them of the RR restrictions, you said so yourself. The problem is they did not understand its significance. This cannot be laid at the feet of TfL, I'm afraid. The 'driver' just did not understand the meaning and effect of the RR parking place, but the sign is there. A big RR sign in a parking place can only really be interpreted one way. And do not forget, the car WAS ACTUALLY PARKED on the red line anyway, therefore as with a regular yellow line, the driver was obliged to look for the regulating sign and if they did not think the one in the parking place was clear or applied then their obligation was to follow the line around the corner into the main road until they found the sign. After all, you say they turned from that road which implied they were already aware of the prevailing RR restriction - which if truth's known is probably why they turned into the side road in the first place i.e. to get away from a restriction of which they were already fully aware.


Also is it reasonable to assume that they should check a different road for such restrictions? completely understandable if RR sign was on the road where the PCN was issued and would have no arguments against that, had that been the case.

As above, they didn't have to. I think all the necessary clues were there. So as you now say that you have no arguments, it would be sensible to pay no more than the discount.

I dont think the driver has anything to lose

That might be true. Liability lies with the registered keeper. Is this them? If not, then who is? Life can get messy and more expensive if intermediary registered keepers are involved e.g. hire/lease companies, employers etc.

I see no defence as regards the contravention.


The othe rside of Letchworth has a dropped kerb in place where the red line runs along then its the same RR restriction as the driver initially thought. Parking on the other side of Letchworth red line regardless of time would have incurred a PCN for obstruction of footpath/crossing.
Initiially they did think the red line does apply to the sign they thought, because there was no other sign on that side of the the road. They did not travel in the direction of the red line back to the main road, so did not think to check (got out of car and walked further down letchworth to drop some food items to a vulnerable/isolating household, which holds no significance anyway). The photo which the CEO took, the driver was not aware of until checking the TFL PCN and images taken by CEO which showed it was the main road RR sign which was the actual one that was in effect.

The car is private, and the RK has allowed the driver to use it prior to lockdown - so its been in their possession for last couple months. RK will take car back in next 2 weeks.

Also even the discount is not even payable at this stage. Literally its the last thing on their mind. So I said I will happy to take on this case for them. Even if (and very likely will be the case) it does fail at adjudication, it will be £130. The issue at hand here is that if £65 is a stuggle to pay now, £130 will be pretty much a no go anyways from their perspective. What will happen after that, if they are unable to pay?

Your comments and odds being not great were explained, with no avail.







QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 09:27) *
Well, HCA has taken you through the detail, but it is quite clear that the potential for confusion is ther. The maximum payable if taken to London Tribunals would be the full £130 penalty, no more.


Hence, happy to take this as test case to adjudication for confusion - which is evidently clear.


A long winded representation might make them back of but don't bank on it


--------------------
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
theeagleman
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 10:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Happy to try whatever you knowledgeable people feel is worth trying. Even if odds are not great.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 10:33
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,037
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Market trading bays are not used during lockdown so a bit harsh to enforce for what's seems to be an honest mistake and car wasn't parked on main road. A polite informal challenge for discretion may be best but it probably won't be worth pursuing at formal stage for £130 should they reject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 11:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 521
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



QUOTE (theeagleman @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 11:13) *
Initiially they did think the red line does apply to the sign they thought, because there was no other sign on that side of the the road. They did not travel in the direction of the red line back to the main road, so did not think to check (got out of car and walked further down letchworth to drop some food items to a vulnerable/isolating household, which holds no significance anyway).


I think it may be worth going in with a fairly soft appeal at this stage, pointing out the discrepancies in the signage, and that it was a genuine error, and asking for discretion as the stop was to deliver shopping for a vulnerable person in these difficult times. Even better if the vulnerable person writes you a letter to send verifying this to send with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 11:53
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,392
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



We will disagree on this I would go whole hog. We know discretion is not in TfL's lexicon so why bother if the advise is then to pay the discount.

Focus on what you did and that you would not have passed a sign you would have seen. that there is a bay ( we know what it is, but without better signing why would anyone) then you have the currant Covid 19 guidance given what is said re enforcement why should an area marked as a bay be classed as obstructive

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtBHPhdJdppVyGhqo4-...Ck3RaY?e=W2jool

IMO your best hope if you are fighting this is go in with the kitchen sink from the start. TfL might give up, or they might mess up and not consider all points.

But remember you are gambling £65 on a double or quits. (you do get 3 shots though, you need win one, TfL need to win all 3)


--------------------
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
theeagleman
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:40
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



QUOTE (peodude @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:27) *
I think it may be worth going in with a fairly soft appeal at this stage, pointing out the discrepancies in the signage, and that it was a genuine error, and asking for discretion as the stop was to deliver shopping for a vulnerable person in these difficult times. Even better if the vulnerable person writes you a letter to send verifying this to send with it.



Would be difficult to get any verification letter from them. They are in their 60/70s i believe. But a good shout. Will ask the driver to do so, but think unlikely.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:53) *
We will disagree on this I would go whole hog. We know discretion is not in TfL's lexicon so why bother if the advise is then to pay the discount.

Focus on what you did and that you would not have passed a sign you would have seen. that there is a bay ( we know what it is, but without better signing why would anyone) then you have the currant Covid 19 guidance given what is said re enforcement why should an area marked as a bay be classed as obstructive

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtBHPhdJdppVyGhqo4-...Ck3RaY?e=W2jool

IMO your best hope if you are fighting this is go in with the kitchen sink from the start. TfL might give up, or they might mess up and not consider all points.

But remember you are gambling £65 on a double or quits. (you do get 3 shots though, you need win one, TfL need to win all 3)



Happy to go in with the kitchen sink - in a polite manner.

Couple of issues at hand which need to be forseen. The driver's official residence is in east london (which they primarily live), but they have been living in south west london (where PCN was issued) for the duration of the lockdown period - personal issues. At this stage of the appeal, would driver name and address need to be delved into? I understand it will eventually have to be the case.
Also will a question as to why driver was in south london, when residence is officially in east?


I will post up a draft in the next couple of days or so for your opinions.

Again, as i mentioned in previous posts. Nothing to lose for driver, and even if a loss is at adjudication, they probably will not be able to pay it (especially if they cant even pay it now).

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:50
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,392
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (theeagleman @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 13:40) *
QUOTE (peodude @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:27) *
I think it may be worth going in with a fairly soft appeal at this stage, pointing out the discrepancies in the signage, and that it was a genuine error, and asking for discretion as the stop was to deliver shopping for a vulnerable person in these difficult times. Even better if the vulnerable person writes you a letter to send verifying this to send with it.



Would be difficult to get any verification letter from them. They are in their 60/70s i believe. But a good shout. Will ask the driver to do so, but think unlikely.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 22 May 2020 - 12:53) *
We will disagree on this I would go whole hog. We know discretion is not in TfL's lexicon so why bother if the advise is then to pay the discount.

Focus on what you did and that you would not have passed a sign you would have seen. that there is a bay ( we know what it is, but without better signing why would anyone) then you have the currant Covid 19 guidance given what is said re enforcement why should an area marked as a bay be classed as obstructive

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtBHPhdJdppVyGhqo4-...Ck3RaY?e=W2jool

IMO your best hope if you are fighting this is go in with the kitchen sink from the start. TfL might give up, or they might mess up and not consider all points.

But remember you are gambling £65 on a double or quits. (you do get 3 shots though, you need win one, TfL need to win all 3)



Happy to go in with the kitchen sink - in a polite manner.

Couple of issues at hand which need to be forseen. The driver's official residence is in east london (which they primarily live), but they have been living in south west london (where PCN was issued) for the duration of the lockdown period - personal issues. At this stage of the appeal, would driver name and address need to be delved into? I understand it will eventually have to be the case.
Also will a question as to why driver was in south london, when residence is officially in east?


I will post up a draft in the next couple of days or so for your opinions.

Again, as i mentioned in previous posts. Nothing to lose for driver, and even if a loss is at adjudication, they probably will not be able to pay it (especially if they cant even pay it now).


Don't be daft, if you lose at adjudication. YOU WILL PAY saying you can't wont bother the bailiffs and by then it will cost a lot more. Just bite the bullet and pay the discount if paying is an issue


--------------------
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
theeagleman
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 13:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Baiiffs are already on their case about other things, which they are having to deal with. This is not saying they will NOT pay, it is saying they are unable to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 22 May 2020 - 13:14
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,707
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Surely we're not suggesting that any driver can now be in a CPZ or other restricted zone and then cross carriageways and park against oncoming traffic and claim not to have seen or passed a sign and succeed with this argument!


OP, are you planning on submitting a challenge - you're perfectly entitled to despite the fact you weren't driving.

@PMB, what kitchen sink as regards the contravention which is simply that a car parked on a red route other than in a parking place, the driver then failed to look diligently for a sign but found one which had no effect at their location - the sign has a 'P' which means its scope is limited to a parking place - but which nonetheless carried sufficient info to alert a diligent motorist to the RR restriction - RR parking places being exemptions from prevailing RR restrictions and signs therefore carry the red route restriction and the exemption.

Anyway OP, you should do something.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 22 May 2020 - 13:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Tuesday, 2nd June 2020 - 00:54
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.