QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 29 May 2018 - 15:28)
These threads tend to be 99% narrative and 1% quantified data.
Can I see if I can reverse this:
The suspended area extended from no. 16 to no. 12, a distance of ** metres ( OP pl insert);
There was a single suspension sign placed on a post o/s no 20 which is ** metres from the beginning of the suspended area;
The OP parked o/s no. 12, *** metres from the end ofthe bay;
According to the council, the sign was erected on 8 May, 8 days before the suspension came into effect;
The OP has told us that they live in the road, whether on the same side or not, we don't know, but if so (implicity) at a higher number than 20 ( the alternative is that they are blind because the big yellow sign was o/s no.20;
The OP told us that they had not seen this sign.
Is there any other evidence?
IMO, if the authority are correct then adequacy of notice as regards giving warning of the suspension is established.
But IMO this leaves the issue of why only one sign?
OP, I suggest you write back to the council, thank them for their letter and add that in order to help you decide what action to take would they please explain why they only erected a single suspension sign.
I think they'll say, if they reply at all and if they don't you would have to infer from their letter, that there was only one sign in this length of the parking place. In which case, if you were minded to continue - and providing the distances which you will insert above support this- then you could make reps on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because inadequate signage was displayed. Contrary to their implied claim, it is IRRELEVANT, that there was only one post with a Res Permit Holder traffic sign, they could and should have erected a sign on the one at the join of the two parking places.
What could be their defence?
It's not in the suspended area.
Neither was the one they did erect!
The post(and it's only the post which is important - practicality v legal requirements) was there. Simply put a sign on it. But of course they'd have to rehash it to read 'arrow to left, blurb ... no.10 to no.16...).
Had they done so, then an adj IMO would conclude that in all probability the driver would have seen a big yellow sign practically on the end of their nose, as opposed to being asked to observe one **** metres away.
Many thanks HCA, apologies if I've not included all the data clearly and I do really appreciate all the help.
The refusal letter does state 'One suspension sign was posted' which based on my knowledge is what RBKC always does - I rarely see multiple signs unless there are multiple 'posts' worth of suspensded bays. I would have seen the sign if it had been posted at the post joining the two parking places.
I'll give it some thought but really don't want to end up with the full penalty.