Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Whitehorse Road CR0 PCN for parking with one or more wheels on curb
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Luke1991
Hi,

My mother has recently had a PCN for parking with more than 1 wheel on the curb in Whitehorse Road CR0. Please see the Streetview here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...e575e6?hl=en-gb

She had come from the direction of Windmill Road down the road and saw a parking sign to allow parking on the curb at Whitehorse Road on the corner of Bolougne Road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Northco...1c5f3f?hl=en-gb

She had parked on the curb behind another car on Windmill Road directly outside the Sharrocks warehouse where the Sharrocks Lettering is on the warehouse, further down the road there is a sign that shows you are not allowed to park on the curb in the direction of Bolougne Road, however she had not seen this and the signage is confusing.

My issue here is there is no clear boundary of either sign and this causes confusion, what are the grounds for appeal?

The attached pictures are from Croydons Enforcement Officer

Thanks

Click to view attachment
DancingDad
You've laid out the basics Luke.
With zone signs, unless there is a clear indication (End Sign) that the zone has ended, you are entitled to rely on the entry sign.
Be certain there isn't one, don't rely on streetview, drive down the road.... your own photos will not harm as long as they do not show an End sign.

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN
Having driven northwards along Windmill Lane looking for a parking space, I relied upon the sign (at the junction of Windmill and Bolougne) that allowed footway parking.
Given that there was no End sign to show that the footway parking zone had ended before I parked, I was and am entitled to rely upon the last sign that I passed and thus park on the footway.
I note that your CEO relied upon a sign beyond my travel and would remind you that while there is a clear duty on motorists to look for parking restrictions and signs, this does not apply to signs that contradict existing signage.
Even if the area where I parked is outside of permitted footway parking, without an appropriate sign showing this, the PCN cannot be upheld.
I look forward to your agreement and cancellation
Hugs and Kisses
Luke1991
Hi,

I have received a reply from Croydon Council regarding this, they seem to have not acknowledged the fact that the other sign contradicts and ignored it completely in their reply.

My mothers initial reply to the Council

"Having driven northwards along Whitehorse Road from Croydon Town Centre looking for a parking space, I relied upon the sign (at the junction of Whitehorse Road and Bolougne Road) that allowed footway parking.

Given that there was no end sign to show that the footway parking zone had ended before I parked, I was and am entitled to rely upon the last sign that I passed and thus park on the footway.

I note that your CEO relied upon a sign beyond my travel and would remind you that while there is a clear duty on motorists to look for parking restrictions and signs, this does not apply to signs that contradict existing signage.

Even if the area where I parked is outside of permitted footway parking, without an appropriate sign showing this, the PCN cannot be upheld."


To which they have replied with the following yesterday.





Any help would again be appreciated
stamfordman
As usual they have not addressed the key point at all. This is presumably where there should be signs demarcating kerb parking:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...955621?hl=en-gb

but all there is a diminutive white marking. Without a sign, as you say, which one applies?

Which direction did your mother walk after parking?
Luke1991
She walked back towards Croydon Town Centre, so never passed the sign that they all edge she should've seen.

It was highly confusing as the cars behind her that she drove past were on the curb, the cars infront of where she parked were also on the curb.
stamfordman
I would continue with this if you are sure the signage is as we think.

I've also noticed that some info on the PCN hasn't printed - or is it your pic? The discount amount is not there.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 21:11) *
I would continue with this if you are sure the signage is as we think.

I've also noticed that some info on the PCN hasn't printed - or is it your pic? The discount amount is not there.


Good spot stamf If the signs are as per GSV that should win it for you, but if that is their printer error and not yours that's a slam dunk
Luke1991
That would be due to the flash from the camera.

I'm still sure they should've marked a clear exit sign so I will pursue and update as it happens.
Luke1991
Hi All,

Our representations to the Council below, and the Notice of Rejection from Croydon Council as follows...

It seems they have not acknowledged the fact I pointed out that there was no end sign, and in fact this seems like a copy and paste of their previous reply.

Also, I'd like to point out that it seems the original PCN has letters cut off (See first picture in first post), e.g Date/Time of Service of notice. And part about reduced amount.

Is this essentially a clear cut for my mother for going to tribunals as the signage is totally inadequate, or does any one have any other advice?

QUOTE
25/09/2017 Sent to Croydon Council via Formal Representations

On the 19/07/2017, I was driving down Whitehorse Road coming from the direction of Central Croydon. I noticed a sign which indicated partial pavement parking on my left along Whitehorse Road from the junction of Bolougne Road.

I drove past several cars parked on the pavement before finding a parking spot in just before the entrance to the Sharrocks building and the Chiropodist's on Whitehorse Road. There were also several vehicles parked in front of my car the other side of the Sharrocks driveway.

I then proceeded to walk back up Whitehorse Road towards Croydon. I did not see any sign or indication to show that pavement parking had ended between where I had parked my car and the sign at Bolougne Road.

Whilst I understand from the council CEO's picture that there was a sign further down Whitehorse Road to indicate that there was no parking on the pavement, this was in fact misleading as there was no sign in between to indicate the opposite. This sign was also past my final destination, and I could only rely on the sign on Bolougne Road as my entrance point. The council have a duty to inform motorists of the correct regulations through proper signage.

Although your officer indicated that there was a further sign down the road, this is a highly confusing situation. I point out that was not the way I was travelling in my car, nor the direction I walked when I parked my car. There is nothing to indicate that the signage I was following ended before I parked.

I would appreciate the council cancelling this PCN and amending their signage to properly inform motorists of this fact.







Luke1991
I'd also like to point out that it seems the original PCN has letters cut off (See first picture in first post), e.g Date/Time of Service of notice. And part about reduced amount.

Is the PCN intact invalid because of this?
stamfordman
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 14:31) *
I'd also like to point out that it seems the original PCN has letters cut off (See first picture in first post), e.g Date/Time of Service of notice. And part about reduced amount.

Is the PCN intact invalid because of this?



Yes I pointed that out in #6. It is an extra point to make.
Luke1991
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 15:25) *
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 14:31) *
I'd also like to point out that it seems the original PCN has letters cut off (See first picture in first post), e.g Date/Time of Service of notice. And part about reduced amount.

Is the PCN intact invalid because of this?



Yes I pointed that out in #6. It is an extra point to make.


Ahh right, seem to have got myself a little confused as it's been some time laugh.gif

I'll check the PCN again in hand and ensure it is actually misprinted, or whether it was the flash on my camera. Although I don't think my flash would have caused it.
Luke1991
Definitely a misprint, am I right to say they need time of service of notice to be fully printed on the PCN... AND they also must have the amount the reduced cost should include?

Can anyone help me word this point formally?
Luke1991
All, my submission to the London Tribunals

QUOTE
To whom it may concern,

I believe this PCN to be invalid for the following reasons

1. The PCN issued has required text missing from it, I have attached a photograph of the PCN in question. The PCN must have the date and time of contravention, as well as information on the reduced amount. As the PCN has been misprinted this is in fact missing and invalidates the PCN.

2. The signage was throughly inadequate, as expressed in my statement to Croydon Council and repeated below. I have also attached some Google Street View pictures to show this case.

** The signage I relied upon as, please note at the time I parked the road was full hence the white markings on the pavement would not have been visible and these can't be sufficient markings to rely upon as they would not have been visible. If this is were the supposed pavement parking should have ended, then there should have been an additional sign to indicate this.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...955621?hl=en-gb

** The location I was parked in
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...955621?hl=en-gb

** The contradicting signage that the council relied upon
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/135+Whi...955621?hl=en-gb

"On the 19/07/2017, I was driving down Whitehorse Road coming from the direction of Central Croydon. I noticed a sign which indicated partial pavement parking on my left along Whitehorse Road from the junction of Bolougne Road.

I drove past several cars parked on the pavement before finding a parking spot in just before the entrance to the Sharrocks building and the Chiropodist's on Whitehorse Road. There were also several vehicles parked in front of my car the other side of the Sharrocks driveway.

I then proceeded to walk back up Whitehorse Road towards Croydon. I did not see any sign or indication to show that pavement parking had ended between where I had parked my car and the sign at Bolougne Road.

Whilst I understand from the council CEO's picture that there was a sign further down Whitehorse Road to indicate that there was no parking on the pavement, this was in fact misleading as there was no sign in between to indicate the opposite. This sign was also past my final destination, and I could only rely on the sign on Bolougne Road as my entrance point. The council have a duty to inform motorists of the correct regulations through proper signage.

Although your officer indicated that there was a further sign down the road, this is a highly confusing situation. I point out that was not the way I was travelling in my car, nor the direction I walked when I parked my car. There is nothing to indicate that the signage I was following ended before I parked. Had the signage been adequate my car would not have been parked there.

I would appreciate the council cancelling this PCN and amending their signage to properly inform motorists of this fact."

Regards
Luke1991
Morning everyone, received an Appeal Refused from the adjudicator, which is another crappy decision by the London Tribunals, very unhappy, they seem to not even bother to acknowledge anything that is put forward from the appellants sometimes.

QUOTE
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway when in Whitehorse Road on 19 July 2017 at 13.38.

The Appellant's case is that her vehicle was parked correctly and that the signage supported her belief. She also raises issues in relation to the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway when in Whitehorse Road on 19 July 2017.

Parking on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway is not allowed anywhere in Greater London unless an exemption applies.

I find the Authority's evidence to be clear and unequivocal. The Civil Enforcement Officer's photo shots confirm that the Appellant's vehicle was parked on the footway in that part of Whitehorse Road where there was no footway parking exemption.

The sign plate indicating that footway parking had ended can be seen in the Civil Enforcement Officer's photo shots.

It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they park only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there.

Parking on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway is not allowed anywhere in Greater London unless an exemption applies. As stated there is no such exemption at this precise location in Whitehorse Road. The restriction applies twenty-four hours a day seven days a week, which includes Sundays. It includes crossovers/driveways which give vehicle access from the road to adjoining premises. There is no requirement for any signs and the vehicle need not be causing any obstruction or preventing an obstruction. This has been the law since 1974 when it was a criminal offence, see section 15 of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1974 (as amended); it is now a civil matter.

The Penalty Charge Notice in this case does contain the date and time of the contravention. It is correct that some letters in relation to the reduced payment are missing, however I find that the PCN overall is substantially compliant with the regulations and that the Appellant was aware of her rights in relation to payment.

The appeal is refused.


QUOTE
I find the Authority's evidence to be clear and unequivocal. The Civil Enforcement Officer's photo shots confirm that the Appellant's vehicle was parked on the footway in that part of Whitehorse Road where there was no footway parking exemption.


Unequivocal? really? These adjudicators could incite violence I'm sure..

stamfordman
Did you go in person? It seems the adjudicator hasn't looked at the evidence properly.
Luke1991
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:07) *
Did you go in person? It seems the adjudicator hasn't looked at the evidence properly.


No, it was an online appeal.
John U.K.
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?
Luke1991
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:31) *
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?


Sorry, I'm not exactly clear on what this means? Would you like me to upload all correspondence?
stamfordman
I think we've let you down a bit with this one. I wonder if it's worth requesting a review.
John U.K.
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:37) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:31) *
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?


Sorry, I'm not exactly clear on what this means? Would you like me to upload all correspondence?


As I understand it, and HCA is the expert here on this:

In order to to allow parking of any sort wholly or partly on a footway the Council (not some bod in the parking department) must pass a resolution to say the London-wide ban on footway parking is dis-applied for a particular footway in a particular road.

The schedule to the resolution should specify exactly to which section(s) of footway the ban is dis-applied, and the signs and markings to be used to indicate clearly the lack of restriction resulting.

E.g. High Street Anytown, north side, xx metres from point A to point B.

--------------------
So far, so good, BUT

1) Some resolutions fail to mention specific lengths e.g. High Street, Anytown, north side. This means that the ban is dis-applied for the entire length, irrespective of signs and matkings the council may place intending to shorten the length.

If this is the case for Whitehorse Road you were legally parked.

2) Sometimes there is no Council resolution.. a bod in parking has decided. I am not sure how this pans out in your case... the experts will advise.

-----------------------------
As for uploading correspondence, best thing to post here the case number, copy of your appeal and (from the Council's Evidence Pack) the 2-3 page summary of why the Council thought the appeal should be denied. Then the experts here can see what the Adj had in front of him.


Luke1991
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:02) *
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:37) *
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 10:31) *
Did the Council produce, or did you obtain, a copy of the resolution dis-applying the footway parking restriction in Whitehorse Road?


Sorry, I'm not exactly clear on what this means? Would you like me to upload all correspondence?


As I understand it, and HCA is the expert here on this:

In order to to allow parking of any sort wholly or partly on a footway the Council (not some bod in the parking department) must pass a resolution to say the London-wide ban on footway parking is dis-applied for a particular footway in a particular road.

The schedule to the resolution should specify exactly to which section(s) of footway the ban is dis-applied, and the signs and markings to be used to indicate clearly the lack of restriction resulting.

E.g. High Street Anytown, north side, xx metres from point A to point B.

--------------------
So far, so good, BUT

1) Some resolutions fail to mention specific lengths e.g. High Street, Anytown, north side. This means that the ban is dis-applied for the entire length, irrespective of signs and matkings the council may place intending to shorten the length.

If this is the case for Whitehorse Road you were legally parked.

2) Sometimes there is no Council resolution.. a bod in parking has decided. I am not sure how this pans out in your case... the experts will advise.

-----------------------------
As for uploading correspondence, best thing to post here the case number, copy of your appeal and (from the Council's Evidence Pack) the 2-3 page summary of why the Council thought the appeal should be denied. Then the experts here can see what the Adj had in front of him.


Hi John,

here's all evidence from the London Tribunals website:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1njHxbMhAp...NhBykht-Dxu7JMH


I have just contacted the council re TMO or other documents relating to the pavement parking between Bolougne Road and Princess Road
PASTMYBEST
Can we see the photos produced in evidence by the council. Your i doubt have been considered if they were only GSV links No mention of the resolution sadly But subject to seeing the entry in the register. No mention by the council or the adjudicator of the mis print
Luke1991
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 11:54) *
Can we see the photos produced in evidence by the council. Your i doubt have been considered if they were only GSV links No mention of the resolution sadly But subject to seeing the entry in the register. No mention by the council or the adjudicator of the mis print


Hi PMB,

all of the authorities photos can be seen in that Google Drive link in my post above, in the document Category C - PCN, PA CEO notes, Witness Statments and photos (Enforcing Authority).pdf
nextdoor
This case illustrates the importance of personal hearings.

On the face of it, the council photos show a clear contravention, but the adjudicator doesn't seem to have taken into account the missing double sign between Boulogne Road and Sharrocks, which the OP would have had the opportunity to emphasise at a personal hearing.
hcandersen
The contravention did not occur according to GSV evidence.

I have no idea why the OP did not introduce this evidence, only they can explain.

OP, you must give us the case number so we can see when the review period starts. If you're within it, then you can apply for a review.

Go to GSV and look at the post opposite 172 Whitehorse Rd. Is that still in situ? If so, then the contravention did not occur because you were parked within the scope of that sign, the sign with the red line is b******s and has NO legal effect from right to left, it has been erected in error. The signs MUST be considered from left to right i.e. the direction of travel, and if the sign o/s 172 is still there then that is ALL the evidence needed, any sign ahead of your car (even if it made sense, which this one doesn't) is for the birds.

So, just answer the questions:
Is the sign opposite 172 still there and did you introduce this in your evidence? If you did, where's the photo, if not, get a photo;
The case number.

And ASP pl.

This has nothing to do with resolutions at present, just the signs.
nextdoor
Case No: 2170492898
Luke1991
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 14:42) *
The contravention did not occur according to GSV evidence.

I have no idea why the OP did not introduce this evidence, only they can explain.

OP, you must give us the case number so we can see when the review period starts. If you're within it, then you can apply for a review.

Go to GSV and look at the post opposite 172 Whitehorse Rd. Is that still in situ? If so, then the contravention did not occur because you were parked within the scope of that sign, the sign with the red line is b******s and has NO legal effect from right to left, it has been erected in error. The signs MUST be considered from left to right i.e. the direction of travel, and if the sign o/s 172 is still there then that is ALL the evidence needed, any sign ahead of your car (even if it made sense, which this one doesn't) is for the birds.

So, just answer the questions:
Is the sign opposite 172 still there and did you introduce this in your evidence? If you did, where's the photo, if not, get a photo;
The case number.

And ASP pl.

This has nothing to do with resolutions at present, just the signs.


?? This was my whole argument, and there were GSV links in the appeal to London Tribunals as well.

Yes the sign 172 on the corner of Boulogne Road was in place and has been in place as far back as GSV goes (2008). Yes this was introduced in my evidence, but wholly ignored by the council and London Tribunals. See post 14 for what I submitted

Case number: 2170492898
PASTMYBEST
As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored
Luke1991
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:04) *
As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored


They did copy across, but looking at it the links all link to 135 whitehorse road, whereas copying and pasting the text of the links would link to the correct locations.

What are my rights for appeal?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Luke1991 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:10) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 15:04) *
As per HCA. That end of restriction sign cannot apply. Teper can be obtuse at time. If you look at the evidence pack the GSV links didn't copy across. so were likely ignored


They did copy across, but looking at it the links all link to 135 whitehorse road, whereas copying and pasting the text of the links would link to the correct locations.

What are my rights for appeal?



You can apply for a review of the decision, i would think in the interests of justice as the original adjudicator had misinterpreted the sign and not taken account of your evidence
Luke1991
If anyone would be so kind to help me draft a request for review, I would be very grateful.
Mr Meldrew
This is an application by the appellant for a review of the original adjudicator’s decision to refuse the appeal.

The application is made under Regulation 11(1)(e) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 on the basis that the interests of justice require such a review.

The original adjudicator erred…

(I will be corrected if I am wrong)

A problem for adjudicator Carl Teper, as I understand the administration of justice (as a lay person), is that although he considered where the sign plate indicating that footway parking had ended, as can be seen in the CEO's photo shots, he failed to consider where it began again, which it certainly does in the direction of Boulogne Road. IMO, the adjudicator had insufficient information to have found that footway parking was prohibited where the appellant’s car was parked, had he bothered to consider the appellant’s representation regarding the lack of a footway parking sign (and an obvious failure to maintain the signage).

Edited ohmy.gif
Luke1991
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 16:52) *
This is an application by the appellant for a review of the original adjudicator’s decision to refuse the appeal.

The application is made under Regulation 11(1)(e) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 on the basis that the interests of justice require such a review.

The original adjudicator erred…

(I will be corrected if I am wrong)

A problem for adjudicator Susan Wolfenden, as I understand the administration of justice (as a lay person), is that although she considered where the sign plate indicating that footway parking had ended, as can be seen in the CEO's photo shots, she failed to consider where it began again, which it certainly does in the direction of Boulogne Road. IMO, adjudicator Wolfenden had insufficient information to have ruled out that footway parking was permitted where the appellant’s car was parked, had she bothered to consider the appellant’s representation regarding the lack of a footway parking sign (and an obvious failure to maintain the signage).


Thank you, I'll await a little more input and then submit the request for review.

Also, my mother is not the adjudicator laugh.gif
hcandersen
Dear Sir,
Case No. *********

I refer to the decision of Adjudicator Teper in the above case and hereby apply for a review of that decision under para. 12(1)(b)(vi) of the Schedule to the Appeals Regulations, namely:

(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.

The adjudicator made a finding of fact that cannot be supported by and is directly in conflict with the evidence and as a direct result the decision is perverse, manifestly unfair, unreasonable and wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would assure you that this application is not being made by an appellant who is simply disgruntled at the outcome but by a rational and reasonable appellant who has a genuine desire to see justice prevail.

It is common ground that the vehicle in question was parked in such a manner that unless the council had used its statutory power to disapply the 1974 Act's prohibition constituted a contravention. Therefore the only issue is: was the vehicle parked where the prohibition applied?

And the answer is no, it was parked where the prohibition had been disapplied and this is unarguably clear in the evidence.

It is accepted that the car was parked opposite no. 200 Whitehorse Rd. within a length of street beginning at a point opposite no. 172 Whitehorse Road and apparently terminating (but see below) ahead of the car opposite no. 204 Whitehorse Road. Evidence was presented in the form of a Google Street View (which is not challenged by the authority) showing a prescribed sign conforming to item 12 of the Part 2 sign table of Schedule 7 to the 2012 Traffic etc. Signs Regulations i.e. diagram 667, situated opposite no. 172 Whitehorse Road. This sign partially delimits an area where footway parking is permitted. This area is apparently terminated at the sign produced by the authority which can clearly be seen 20 metres in front of the car.

It is therefore an unarguable fact that as regards the effect of the prescribed sign situated opposite no. 172 the car was situated within a permitted footway parking area.

The adjudicator misled himself as to the meaning of the sign in the authority's evidence in thinking that in some way this indicated the direction in which footway parking was not permitted. I am certain that you will know that areas where footway parking is not permitted do not need to be signed, this being the default position, and therefore contrary to the adjudicator's belief that this combination of signs is clear, it is in fact the opposite: given that the second sign on this post indicated a permitted footway parking area to the right and that the area to the left is also a permitted footway parking area by virtue of the sign opposite no. 172, then in fact neither sign is needed nor of any effect. In this respect, I would draw your attention to the sign opposite no. 172 which has the same signs in combination. The council clearly need to review their use of signs because the use of this improper combination appears to be systemic.

It is unarguable that even if the redundant signs opposite no. 204 had any meaning, the sign which actually regulates the area where the car was situated would not be and could not be ahead of it (the one yet to be seen and reached) but could only be the one which had been passed and had been seen and complied with. This was situated opposite no. 172 and clearly permits footway parking.

I respectfully submit that the decision in this case be reviewed and my appeal allowed.

I have attached the evidence in question.

Yours .....

Probably needs tweaking but could be used as a basis.
Mr Meldrew
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 17:43) *
It is accepted that the car was parked opposite no. 200 198 Whitehorse Rd....

Luke1991
Ahh a little annoyed as I jumped the gun and submitted a request for review last night, but this morning I have received an email from Croydon's parking services relating to a query about this area below.

What is my best plan of action as I'd like to include this in my review

PASTMYBEST
You can add that new evidence has come to light that you could not be aware of before the hearing
Luke1991
The review was seen today and denied..

Again, they seem to offer blanket statements, similar to my last request for review. I am wholly annoyed at this as this should of been a clear cut case.

QUOTE
Further to your correspondence regarding the outcome of your appeal, the adjudicator, Timothy
Thorne, having looked at all of the evidence, has directed that there are no grounds for there to be a
review of the decision in this case for the following reasons:

Your correspondence has been considered as an application for review by the Adjudicator, Mr.
Timothy Thorne. He has set out the reasons below:

Reasons

1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One
Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons
for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original
Adjudicator or the law.

2. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the
evidence submitted. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the applicant's vehicle was in
contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including the observations of
the applicant's vehicle. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding.

3. The original Adjudicator also made findings that an exemption was not proved in the applicant's
case and that the signage relating to the restriction met the applicable legal test by being substantially
compliant with the relevant regulations as well as being clear and adequate. The original Adjudicator
was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence for the reasons given.

4. The applicant's latest representations are essentially no more than a disagreement with the original
Adjudicator's findings and a repetition of the submissions made before. There is no reason to
conclude that the original Adjudicator did not consider all the evidence submitted and all matters
raised in the applicant's original representations

5. The new email produced by the applicant indicates that the Enforcement Authority intend to review
the signage. This does not undermine the decision made by the original Adjudicator on the basis of
the evidence available to him."

Your application for review is therefore rejected.

The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so. Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay
the penalty promptly, the Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty
by 50%.

Case Management Team
Mr Meldrew
Adjudicator Thorne reached his decision that adjudicator Teper was entitled to conclude that the signage met the applicable legal test and was clear and adequate, with no evidence in Teper’s decision of consideration of whether the fact that there was no prescribed sign to diagram 667.2 at the end of the first section of the footway parking met the applicable legal test of being substantially compliant with the relevant regulations, or whether the end of the area where vehicles may be parked partially on the footway was clear and adequate from the direction of approach by the appellant.

Failure to consider relevant and material evidence is a reason to interfere with the decision of a previous adjudicator and now, to my mind, adjudicator Thorne has failed you. I am left wondering if the council’s case summary, which states, “there was a sign directly adjacent to where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked” has caused confusion and frustration. The council’s photos show a vehicle (displaying a penalty ticket) directly adjacent to the relevant sign, but your mum’s car was 20 metres further away.

I share your frustration as I guess do others here.
hcandersen
Let's see the details of your application for review, pl. Leave in its date and let us know how this was sent.

And was the email from parking design copied to parking enforcement? And what is its date?

The original adjudication decision was 20 Nov, therefore you have until 17 Dec before the authority may pursue you for the outstanding penalty by issuing a charge certificate. We don't want to get this close, however.

My thoughts are that you must get the email to the parking enforcement with a covering letter. The current situation appears to be that that part of the council responsible for traffic signs accepts that this area is incorrectly signed which IMO must lead to cancellation in the circumstances of your case. Let's see if we can get parking to cancel first.

But post the details requested pl, ASP.


Luke1991
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 09:40) *
Let's see the details of your application for review, pl. Leave in its date and let us know how this was sent.

And was the email from parking design copied to parking enforcement? And what is its date?

The original adjudication decision was 20 Nov, therefore you have until 17 Dec before the authority may pursue you for the outstanding penalty by issuing a charge certificate. We don't want to get this close, however.

My thoughts are that you must get the email to the parking enforcement with a covering letter. The current situation appears to be that that part of the council responsible for traffic signs accepts that this area is incorrectly signed which IMO must lead to cancellation in the circumstances of your case. Let's see if we can get parking to cancel first.

But post the details requested pl, ASP.


Hi hcanderson,

QUOTE
Sent: 27 November 2017 18:02
To: queries@londontribunals.org.uk
Subject: Case Ref: 2170492898 - Request for Review



To whom it may concern,

I would like to request a review of my hearing 2170492898.

Please find attached my full statement and reasoning.

To whom it may concern,

Case Reference Number: 2170492898
Date: 27/11/2017

This is an application by the appellant for a review of the original adjudicator’s decision to refuse the appeal.

The application is made under regulation 11(1)(e) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 on the basis that (vi) the interests of justice require such a review.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would assure you that this application is not being made by an appellant who is simply disgruntled at the outcome, but by a rational and reasonable appellant who has a genuine desire to see justice prevail.

To assist in the reading of this letter I will refer to the following objects as follows:

Sign 1 - The signage opposite 204 Whitehorse Road evident in the CEO’s photo shots within the evidence submitted by Croydon Council. A diagram 667.2 limiting pavement parking in the opposite direction of travel.

Sign 2 - The signage opposite 172 Whitehorse Road on the corner of Boulogne Road evident in the evidence submitted by myself, the appellant. A diagram 667 delimiting pavement parking in the direction of travel.

Adjudicator Teper made a finding of fact that cannot be supported by and is directly in conflict with the evidence that was submitted. As a direct result the decision is perverse, manifestly unfair, unreasonable and wrong.

Although adjudicator Teper considered the council's photo shots evidence of Sign 1 indicating footway parking had ended, he failed to consider where footway parking had started again. In the evidence submitted by myself footway parking certainly had started at the corner of Boulogne Road with the introduction of Sign 2 in the direction of Sign 1.

In my opinion adjudicator Teper has insufficient information to have found that footway parking was prohibited where the car was parked. Had adjudicator Teper looked at the evidence submitted by myself then he would have seen the lack of a diagram 667.2 (End of area where vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway ) sign between Sign 1 and Sign 2 to effectively terminate each.

It is not disputed that the vehicle was parked on the pavement opposite 198 Whitehorse Road, between the Sharrocks building and the Registered Chiropodist clinic. The issue is whether the vehicle was parked where a footway parking prohibition applied.

The default position within London is that footway parking is prohibited unless signs permit it. It is not disputed that Sign 1 prohibits pavement parking in the direction of Boulogne Road. It is however not acknowledged by the council that Sign 2 delimits pavement parking in the direction of Princess Road.

The positioning of Sign 2 clearly disapplies the prohibition of pavement parking in the direction of Princess Road and this was unarguably clear in the evidence submitted.

Evidence was presented in the form of a google street view (which is not challenged by the authority) showing a prescribed sign (Sign 2) conforming to item 12 of the Part 2 sign table of Schedule 7 to the 2012 Traffic etc. Signs Regulations, diagram 667 (Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway). This sign delimits an area where footway parking is permitted.

The adjudicator misled himself as to the meaning of the Sign 1 in thinking that this overruled Sign 2.

Areas where footway parking is not permitted do not need to be signed within London. This being the default position, and therefore contrary to the adjudicator's belief that this combination of signs is clear, it is in fact the opposite.

Sign 1 indicated a permitted footway parking area to the direction of Princess Road and that the area to the left of Sing 1 is also a permitted footway parking area by virtue of Sign 2.

The council clearly need to review their use of signs because the use of this improper combination appears to be systemic.

It is unarguable that even if the redundant signs (Sign 1) had any meaning, the sign which actually regulates the area where the car was situated would not be and could not be ahead of it (the one yet to be seen and reached) but could only be the one which had been passed and had been seen and complied with. This was Sign 2 and clearly permits footway parking.

I respectfully submit that the decision in this case be reviewed and my appeal allowed.

To aid in your decision, I have submitted a diagram to this demonstrate the complications of the present signage below.



QUOTE
Sent: 28 November 2017 10:05
To: queries@londontribunals.org.uk
Subject: Re: Case Ref: 2170492898 - Request for Review

I would also like to add the following email that has come directly from Croydon's council themselves (Diana Salmon) this morning admitting that there should be an additional sign in place attached to this email and available at the following link.



This has only recently come to light this morning so I would appreciate if it could be reviewed within the case.

Yours Sincerely
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.