Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ticket on Suspended residents Bay
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
WillW
Hi,

I just parked for about 15 minutes while going inside my home to collect something and hadn't realised the resident's bay had been suspended.

Got back to my car to find a ticket on the windscreen.

Photos of the suspension sign and the bay I was parked in are attached. I was parked to the left of the Pay and Display sign which is a residents bay.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this. I noticed the suspension sign does not appear to carry a reason for the suspension (they usually do) and also that the bay end markings are single rather than double although I'm not sure if either of these are relevant.

Many thanks
WW




stamfordman
GSV is a bit old but was the suspension sign on the pole shown here - it's quite a way from numbers 16-12 I think and you wouldn't really think to check. Is the suspension sign a triangular 3D shape?

get the councils's pics.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5056157,-0....3312!8i6656
PASTMYBEST
We need to see the council photos. From yours and your narrative then you were outside the residents bay and into the shared use bay so no contravention

This is the authorised sign it should have the location reason is not required

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-3927.pdf
stamfordman
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:55) *
you were outside the residents bay and into the shared use bay so no contravention


? OP says he was in the res bay to the left of the P&D (not shared use) sign.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 17:42) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:55) *
you were outside the residents bay and into the shared use bay so no contravention


? OP says he was in the res bay to the left of the P&D (not shared use) sign.

yep mis read
WillW
Thanks for the feedback so far:

Vehice was in res bay.

I didn't see the suspension sign which is outside number 20 - approx 6 or 7 car lengths away from where I parked outside number 12.

Suspension sign is triangular.

Also just to add I do have a valid residents permit which was correctly displayed.

Council photos are attached below:

Many thanks for the help.





cp8759
I'm not sure "C.E.O. to check list" is a cognisable reason for suspending a parking bay.
WillW
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:23) *
I'm not sure "C.E.O. to check list" is a cognisable reason for suspending a parking bay.


Thanks for your help. Would that render the suspension or PCN invalid? PASTMYBEST mentioned a reason not being a requirement.
PASTMYBEST
Do you know of any reason for the suspension? No works appear to be going on in the area, domestic removal perhaps.

You can make an argument that as a resident permit holder you would not usually look at the sign as you know the restriction, also that so close to the daily end to the restriction with no works going on the de minimis principle should apply
WillW
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:29) *
Do you know of any reason for the suspension? No works appear to be going on in the area, domestic removal perhaps.

You can make an argument that as a resident permit holder you would not usually look at the sign as you know the restriction, also that so close to the daily end to the restriction with no works going on the de minimis principle should apply


I suspect the reason for the suspension may be the building works at number 16 - there was one van parked outside number 14 (behind my car) but otherwise there was no obvious reason for the suspension.

Thanks, I'll read up on de minimis.
cp8759
QUOTE (WillW @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:23) *
I'm not sure "C.E.O. to check list" is a cognisable reason for suspending a parking bay.


Thanks for your help. Would that render the suspension or PCN invalid? PASTMYBEST mentioned a reason not being a requirement.

Unfortunately it's not a mandatory requirement so it won't win on its own.
WillW
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:48) *
QUOTE (WillW @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:23) *
I'm not sure "C.E.O. to check list" is a cognisable reason for suspending a parking bay.


Thanks for your help. Would that render the suspension or PCN invalid? PASTMYBEST mentioned a reason not being a requirement.

Unfortunately it's not a mandatory requirement so it won't win on its own.


Thanks. Anything on the bay markings? I’m fairly sure they were double dash before they recently resurfaced the street.
cp8759
QUOTE (WillW @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 20:28) *
Thanks. Anything on the bay markings? I’m fairly sure they were double dash before they recently resurfaced the street.

I suspect an adjudicator would say they're substantially compliant.
WillW
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (WillW @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 20:28) *
Thanks. Anything on the bay markings? I’m fairly sure they were double dash before they recently resurfaced the street.

I suspect an adjudicator would say they're substantially compliant.


Thanks. So I guess I don’t have much to go on. If I send a polite informal appeal along the lines of - oops I didn’t spot the sign which was a fair way from where i parked, that I didn’t drive past the sign along with a soft deminimis hint do I lose the ‘reduced payment discount’ if that fails?

Thanks again
cp8759
QUOTE (WillW @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 15:01) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (WillW @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 20:28) *
Thanks. Anything on the bay markings? I’m fairly sure they were double dash before they recently resurfaced the street.

I suspect an adjudicator would say they're substantially compliant.


Thanks. So I guess I don’t have much to go on. If I send a polite informal appeal along the lines of - oops I didn’t spot the sign which was a fair way from where i parked, that I didn’t drive past the sign along with a soft deminimis hint do I lose the ‘reduced payment discount’ if that fails?

Thanks again

The PCN says that if you challenge within 14 days and they reject, they will normally allow another 14 days to pay the reduced amount, so there's no real risk in asking them to exercise discretion. They can't go back on their undertaking to extend the discount.
WillW
Many thanks
hcandersen
You imply but do not say that you live within the suspended area. In which case, what notice by letter or other direct means was given of the suspension to you by the council?
WillW
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 16:22) *
You imply but do not say that you live within the suspended area. In which case, what notice by letter or other direct means was given of the suspension to you by the council?


Thanks for your question and help.

Yes, I live on the same road sheffield Terrace and hold a valid residents permit for the borough of RBKC.

I was not given any direct notice by letter or otherwise of the suspension nor do we ever get notice except for major roadworks. I believe this may have been a suspension applied for by another resident related to a home being renovate at number 16.

I have just checked the council website and the search does not show any mention of this particular suspension - this is the results of all suspensions from 1st May onwards for Sheffield Terrace:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking/suspensionresults.asp

hcandersen
OP, re you PM, the council's published policy is:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files...02018%20NEW.pdf

'We will normally give seven calendar days' notice of a suspension ( unless it is an emergency) by putting yellow parking suspension warning signs as near as we can to the area... '.

You say it was not an emergency.

So, did they? You would have to have missed the sign repeatedly if they did.

I see they do not notify residents in writing, but 'as a courtesy' would try to phone residents whose vehicles were parked.

Did they?

Both are matters you should raise if they apply. And if you are unsure, then state what you know i.e. I did not notice any parking suspension warning sign in the 7 days prior to the effective date which gives me reason to believe that residents were not notified in this way, contrary to the council's policy.

As regards the telephone call, you've not said whether you live within the suspended area, so I can't comment.

Dispensing with individual letters would be OK, if the other measures are implemented and work.
WillW
Many thanks hcandersen. I do live on the suspended road. I didn’t receive a phone call on this occasion although I have had calls in the past so I know they do this and I know the council have my phone number.

The sign may well have been up for the 7 days before as is noted on the sign itself however I didn’t notice it as it is about 30 meters from the place where I parked and in the opposite direction from where I live. Hope that makes sense.

I think I have an approach but it all feels as mitigating circumstances so it looks like it’s going to be down to goodwill towards a resident with a valid permit. I believe the 15 or so mins I was parked didn’t have any significant impact on the use of the suspended bays which have remained largely empty.
WillW
Hi, I've received the attached refusal from the council. I appealed on the basis of not seeing the sign as it was 30 meters away and the van parked in the bay obscured my diagonal view. Also that my car was only there for 10mins and 2 of the 3 suspended bays were empty so had no real impact.

Any thoughts on this are much appreciated or is it pretty much a done deal?

Many thanks



hcandersen
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.



Mad Mick V
I see where hca is coming from but the re-offered discount looks attractive too.

Mick
WillW
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.
hcandersen
'..on the nearest available and relevant res permit holder/pay and display...'


No they didn't, they put it on the next nearest: the nearest was the one ahead.

It is a total invention of theirs that they're limited to the sign they used.

But it's your choice.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.