Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Code 01 Westminster
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
spring2action
I received a PCN for a contravention that just didn't happen.
I parked on a single yellow line where a sign showed parking restrictions until 1.30pm on a Saturday. The time was 15.52. I'm parked about 3 metres from the sign as can be seen in one of the photos.

Why did I get a ticket when I was legally parked?

I attach the PCN front and back and photos I took of the sign and where I parked.



















EDW
normally you would expect see an arrow on that sign.

You were in a CPZ, there is a part time loading ban - one kerb stripe.

Check the cpz hours.
DancingDad
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 28 Mar 2014 - 21:51) *
normally you would expect see an arrow on that sign.

You were in a CPZ, there is a part time loading ban - one kerb stripe.

Check the cpz hours.


At least we know the answer to this one, unlike your other.
Please stop getting them.

What were you doing? how long were you parked ?
Bogsy
If the line is within a CPZ and is regulated by the CPZ entry signage then you can use the text below if nothing stronger materialises. Keep text formatting for emphasis.


At the time of parking I was unaware that I was doing so during the operational hours of a no waiting restriction. I do not recall seeing any traffic sign that conveyed this. I have since learned that the location is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). When replying to this appeal, it will be helpful if the council confirms all those roads where the relevant CPZ entry signage has been placed and when the signage was last inspected and confirmed to be fully present and correct.

I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraph D5 provides guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s;

D5 The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets.

I’m informed that the CPZ I unwittingly parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Had the no waiting restriction been adequately conveyed then I as a law abiding citizen would not have parked where it is prohibited.
Incandescent
Like so many motorists unfortunate to have to drive, (and park !!), around London, the OP really does need to mug-up on the signs and what they mean, and on CPZs. From the photos posted, the OP is bang-to-rights on the contravention. Bogsy's text is useful and well thought through, but I fear it will not win in the end, the forces against it are too great. Don't think adjudicators just apply the law, they apply their own interpretation of it.
Bogsy
It's not got in front of an adjudicator yet (as far as I know) but it has made a few authorities submit a no contest. It's almost impossible for an authority to justify not complying with guidance. I suspect that the no contests were because the risk of allowing the argument to succeed was too much. Possibly every CPZ consists of more than a dozen streets which means potentially every CPZ could be ruled as inadequately signed. When you consider this it is easy to understand why an authority would rather not contest the odd PCN that relies on my argument. Why risk tens of thousands for £130.

I should add that the first part of my text is the part more acceptable to an adjudicator. It places the onus on the council to prove that signage was all present and correct and if they do not it gives the adjudicator an easy path to avoid the more consequential part of my text.

You have to wonder though why councils ignore the 12 street maximum considered appropriate for a CPZ by the Secretary of State for Transport!
hcandersen
I received a PCN for a contravention that just didn't happen.
Yes it did.
The loading restriction ended at 1.30 but the waiting restriction continued, and that's the contravention in the PCN.
You can submit a risk-free challenge within the period of the initial discount which would be extended if your challenge was unsuccessful. You can but try.

DancingDad
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 29 Mar 2014 - 21:51) *
.............You have to wonder though why councils ignore the 12 street maximum considered appropriate for a CPZ by the Secretary of State for Transport!



I reckon you have to wander which duckegg approved CPZs as an adequate means of signing restrictions in the first place.

Simple fact is that motorists look for signage that means something at the time when they need it.
Whether it be speed limits, no right/left turn signs or virtually any road sign, it applies at the point it should.
Signs that are far in advance of where your journey ends, and often placed at junctions where the driver is trying to make a safe turn. Almost guaranteed to be missed.

Then the poor motorist gets to a parking spot and sees yellow lines. A single yellow so looks for time plates. And, as the OP did here, spots a time plate and promotes it to safe to park. Or in another current thread, knows he's in a CPZ. The sign is 50 yards from where he lives. It clearly says 1.30 end of restricted time so relies on it. But it's the sign to the next CPZ, he's parked in restricted time and would know if he looked at the other side of the sign, which is invisible from where he parked.

The one and only reason for CPZs is to save the cost of timeplates. So councils reap a double harvest. Save on signs and collect mucho penalties from the motorists caught out cos the signage is inadequate in fact if not in law.

Sorry, rant over
Bogsy
I have to concur and exactly why my argument above is valid. Councils ignore the 12 street rule advocated by Govt and the Sec of State and PATAS despite being aware of the rule ignore it. Perhaps the rule being argued in the manner above will make it less possible for PATAS to ignore it. That's my aim.
Hippocrates
That is good advice which puts PATAS and council in a corner to respond.
Bogsy
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 29 Mar 2014 - 23:35) *
That is good advice which puts PATAS and council in a corner to respond.


Thanks H. It will be interesting to see how PATAS justify going against DfT guidance and the Sec of State's view. Personally I can't see how they can do so without looking like they've been bought.
Hippocrates
Sounds like a job for The Black Beret?
Bogsy
The Black Beret is fast becoming a legend like the Scarlett Pimpernel. They seek him here they seek him there!
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 29 Mar 2014 - 23:52) *
The Black Beret is fast becoming a legend like the Scarlett Pimpernel. They seek him here they seek him there!

And there is a lot of him to seek!
DancingDad
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sat, 29 Mar 2014 - 23:49) *
Sounds like a job for The Black Beret?


Not the Black Beret ohmy.gif

QUOTE
And there is a lot of him to seek!


Nah, He's lost weight........... no longer the scary mouse cool.gif
spring2action
Thank you all so much for your advice and comments. I understand now that I read No Loading as No Parking/Waiting. It really is confusing.

Firstly to Bogsy for your invaluable text which I really hope will help me through the appeal process.

DancingDad, it really isn't my intention to accumulate PCNs but I just seem to be so unlucky with where I've parked these days. However, I do appreciate your positive comments (rant as you call it) and of course I shall appeal all the way and keep you informed of the progress.
DancingDad
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 1 Apr 2014 - 15:31) *
.............DancingDad, it really isn't my intention to accumulate PCNs but I just seem to be so unlucky with where I've parked these days. However, I do appreciate your positive comments (rant as you call it) and of course I shall appeal all the way and keep you informed of the progress.



How many you accumulate is entirely up to you. Where I can offer anything, even a rant, I will.
But if you really feel the need to keep emptying your wallet, I am seeking donations for my daughter's rather expensive school trip biggrin.gif

Seriously
Bogsy's points are very valid, from a legalistic point of view.
My rant also has some validity and suitably tidied, then coupled with Bogsy (if you pardon the expression) has the makings of a case of inadequate signage.

I honestly cannot say if an adjudicator will accept it, they can be strange animals and CPZs seem to be sacred.
Why, i haven't a clue because to me they fly in the face of virtually if not all other signage.
Speed limits have to have small repeater signs to remind the motorist, at a fairly short distance. Time how long it takes to go past them next time you go out.
No Entry signs or Give Way signs aren't placed even 10 yards from where they apply.
Even think of directional signs.... come up to a roundabout and there is a pictorial sign a little way before. Which even at speed gives you an idea which exit you need. Then on the roundabout, at each exit, the relevant information is repeated.
They go to that trouble for directions and can't be bothered to include time plates in a CPZ. Ridiculous.

I regularly park inside a CPZ...about 30 yards in. And believe that it applies between 7am and 7pm. But not sure as it is placed immediately after the junction as you turn in from a high speed dual carriageway. By the time you read it, it's gone and realistically, the only way of fully checking the times is to either stop, risking another motor rear ending you or park and walk back. Only 30 yards so no hassle but that 30 yards will get you a postal PCN if CCTV is on the area.
And what option do you have when you park on a single yellow and can't see time plates or even the back of a CPZ sign ??
With modern traffic conditions, the need to be vigilant for other road users, while making maneuvers, quite possibly at night and at speed, signs need to be simple and effective, at the point of need. COZ signage is neither
Hippocrates
And cases are won at PATAS when councils do not provide maps of the CPZ zone.
spring2action
I sent my informal challenge to Westminster 6 April 2014 and received confirmation as follows:

Thank You

Your PCN challenge has been received by the Council and the following information was recorded:

Comments:
At the time of parking I was unaware that I was doing so during the operational hours of a no waiting restriction. I do not recall seeing any traffic sign that conveyed this. There was a No Loading sign nearby which gave a restriction until 13.30 on Saturday see atteched. I have since learned that the location is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). When replying to this appeal, it will be helpful if the council confirms all those roads where the relevant CPZ entry signage has been placed and when the signage was last inspected and confirmed to be fully present and correct.

I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraph D5 provides guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s;

D5 The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets.

I’m informed that the CPZ I unwittingly parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Had the no waiting restriction been adequately conveyed then I as a law abiding citizen would not have parked where it is prohibited.




If any of these details are incorrect please click on this link <http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/pcnappeals/> and re-submit
your challenge with the correct information.

You should receive a response to your challenge within 10 days.


Any comments on this please?
spring2action
I've received a letter from Westminster which reads:-













The 14 day discount period is up in 4 days time so any comments please about this letter would be gratefully received within the next 3 days.
DancingDad
There response is better then others I've seen from Westminster which makes me believe that the normal rejection monkey pushed it higher up for a response. Which makes me believe that you got them worried.
Could you post exactly what you sent?
We need to see how much they failed to consider
And you never need the freedom of info act for evidence that may have a bearing on your considerations.
spring2action
Sure. It reads as follows:

At the time of parking I was unaware that I was doing so during the operational hours of a no waiting restriction. I do not recall seeing any traffic sign that conveyed this. There was a No Loading sign nearby which gave a restriction until 13.30 on Saturday see attached. I have since learned that the location is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). When replying to this appeal, it will be helpful if the council confirms all those roads where the relevant CPZ entry signage has been placed and when the signage was last inspected and confirmed to be fully present and correct.

I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraph D5 provides guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s;

D5 The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets.

I’m informed that the CPZ I unwittingly parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Had the no waiting restriction been adequately conveyed then I as a law abiding citizen would not have parked where it is prohibited.


What do you think?
DancingDad
Okay. Just wanted to be sure what they had returned on the email receipt is all you wrote.

So
1984 act is correct, though to be fair, it is via the TMA 2004
They totally ignore SOS and DFT guidance you refer to and any implications from that
They totally ignore that you releid on the closest sign, and although it did not apply, fail to consider the confusion a motorist may have when faced with yellow lines and is looking for a restriction.
And map certainly shows that the CPZs do not comply with SOS guidance.
They refuse a request for disclosure of evidence

They also state they will issue a Notice to Owner, thus fettering their discretion. The regs say they may but does not offer the certainty.
Cases have been won on this one point and no doubt Hippo will supply case numbers to support that.

Personally I'd continue. But you have two other live PCNs of which one is absolutely bang to rights so ....well it's your money, your risk.
spring2action
Thanks very much DD for your optimistic comments for pursuing this through to the end. I will continue.
Therefore I should now just wait for the NtO to come through and let the discount period pass?

The other two live ones I'm waiting for a response and will post as soon as they come through.
DancingDad
Dunno if I was that optomistic but there is a case that is winnable.... I'd be surprised if it didn't go all the way to PATAS (adjudication) though. You have to be prepared for that and for the personal hearing which is likely the only way you will win.
Not saying pay but am saying be certain.
spring2action
I'm already resigned to visiting PATAS again.
DancingDad
QUOTE (spring2action @ Sun, 20 Apr 2014 - 15:44) *
I'm already resigned to visiting PATAS again.


Fair enough...lets test the system fully then.

I'm thinking of another informal before the discount runs out.

Summat like.

Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ?????

With regard to your rejection letter of the ???? and the attached maps.
These clearly show that your CPZs are not generally set up in accordance with the Secretary of State's Guidance and the specific one that I inadvertently parked in certainly does not comply.

Given that Controlled Parking zones are only signed at the entrances it is patently unsafe to rely on a motorist both seeing and remembering the restrictions when they park if guidance has not been followed. As it hasn't in this case.
The Traffic Sign regulations require repeater signs for other zonal signs such as speed limits as motorists cannot be expected to understand or comply with signage that does not adequately convey the restrictions or prohibition in place.
CPZ signage does not have that absolute requirement but simply following the regulations does not remove the duty of an enforcement authourity to use signage that adequately conveys the restriction.
By not following guidance, you have failed in that duty.
Given that, continuing enforcement of this PCN would be unsafe and thus it must be cancelled.

Hugs and Kisses


See what others think before sending ??
hcandersen
Why can't the OP be specific? IMO, vague comments reading the size of this CPZ (who cares about other CPZs) are not going to win the day.
The SoS's guidance recommends that a CPZ should be no larger than x streets whereas this CPZ comprises y streets. The OP's got the map, so it's simply a case of counting.
IMO, my main concern is the authority's duty to act fairly which I do not think they have.
They have extended the discount but set this within the context of their refusal to provide the info requested by the OP (which sounds like a fishing expedition because it refers to irrelevant issues regarding other CPZs). But notwithstanding this extravagant request, that part of it which was relevant should, IMO, have been addressed by the authority. How could their demand that the OP submit a FOI request be considered fair when the council, as a public authority, are required to comply with a request promptly and not later than the twentieth day following receipt of the request - by which time the discount would have gone to hell in a hand basket and the authority would be empowered to serve a NTO!
Fair, my a**e.
spring2action
At DancingDad's suggestion, I have just sent the following 2nd informal challenge on Westminster's website. It is actually 15 days from the date of the rejection letter to my first informal challenge. so 1 day past the discount period. Supposed to get a reply within 10 working days.


[i]Dear Sirs

With regard to your rejection letter of the 12 April 2014 and the attached maps, these clearly show that your CPZs are not generally set up in accordance with the Secretary of State's Guidance and the specific one that I inadvertently parked in certainly does not comply.

Given that Controlled Parking zones are only signed at the entrances it is patently unsafe to rely on a motorist both seeing and remembering the restrictions when they park if guidance has not been followed. As it hasn't in this case.
The Traffic Sign regulations require repeater signs for other zonal signs such as speed limits as motorists cannot be expected to understand or comply with signage that does not adequately convey the restrictions or prohibition in place.
CPZ signage does not have that absolute requirement but simply following the regulations does not remove the duty of an enforcement authourity to use signage that adequately conveys the restriction.
By not following guidance, you have failed in that duty.
Given that, continuing enforcement of this PCN would be unsafe and thus it must be cancelled.

Moreover, Westminster Council's duty is to act fairly which I do not think it has.
You have extended the discount but set this within the context of your refusal to provide the information requested (because it refers to irrelevant issues regarding other CPZs). But notwithstanding this extravagant request, that part of it which was relevant should have been addressed by Westminster Council. How could your demand that I submit a FOI request be considered fair when the council, as a public authority, is required to comply with a request promptly and not later than the twentieth day following receipt of the request - by which time the discount would have gone and Westminster Council would be empowered to serve a NTO.
[/i]

Now to wait for the next instalment... wink.gif
spring2action
Hello again, I received the attached letter from Westminster Council 3 days ago in response to my 2nd informal challenge sent 27th April 2014. They are still rejecting my challenge although giving me a further 14 days of discount period.





Any thoughts on the comments made?
DancingDad
You know have three options.

Pay... your choice but they are deeper in the mire with every letter.
Wait for NTO and put in formal Reps
And the one they do not offer. Challenge again.

Before we get to that. They do not have the information regarding maintenance of signs to hand. Yet your challenge is partly on signs not being clear and you have asked specifically for the information. SO HTF did they consider without accessing the info ??

Your initial challenge was a Bogsy special and specifically deals with SOS guidance and size of CPZs. They failed to answer.
We sent a second which specifically challenges that this CPZ does not match guidance. They waffle for an answer.

As HCA said earlier.
Westminster CPZ that you parked in has X streets
SOS guidance has Y streets
Y is smaller by Y-X streets
Given this and that I have twice referred you to SOS guidance on setting up CPZs and the dangers of making them too large, I fail to understand how I or any motorist can be expected to comply with signs that are patently fail to match guidance and how you continue to insist that signage is clear.

see what others say
spring2action
Does anyone have any further comments, particularly whether to do another informal challenge before the NtO appears?
SchoolRunMum
I would do another informal challenge - often people then get a reply from any Council, typically saying 'shut up, we won't consider further informal challenges' which digs a BIG hole for them, as they have to consider all challenges received before the NTO.
spring2action
Ok thanks to DancingDad and SchoolRunMum, I have just sent a 3rd informal challenge on Westminster's website which reads simply as follows:

Westminster CPZ that I parked in, has X number of streets. The SOS guidance has Y number of streets
Y is smaller by Y-X streets.
Given this and that I have twice referred you to SOS guidance on setting up CPZs and the dangers of making them too large, I fail to understand how I or any motorist can be expected to comply with signs that patently fail to match the guidance and how you continue to insist that signage is clear.


I shall let you know what happens next...
DancingDad
Did you put actual numbers in or leave X and Y ??
spring2action
I used the x and y reference as I didn't have the actual numbers.

I just counted the number of streets in CPZ F2 and it's in excess of 68 streets. The Secretary of State gives a maximum of no more than 12 streets. If WC need me to elaborate then I will give them these figures.
spring2action
And here is the letter from Westminster Council in response to my 3rd informal challenge:





Any comments on this please?

DancingDad
IIRc, herron V sunderland was more around faulty signs invalidating the CPZ then size.
In one respect Westmonster are right, it did change absolute compliance for signs to substantial compliance. In other words if they look right they are usually acceptable.
But doesn't remove the need for signs to clearly convey the message. And they have skirted over whether or not oversized CPZs can be expected to convey the message and why they believe that ignoring guidance somehow does ensure that the signage is adequate
spring2action
And here is the NtO from Westminster:











Shall I use the same text as was sent in the informal challenge?


spring2action
Any comments please?
Incandescent
QUOTE (spring2action @ Tue, 17 Jun 2014 - 10:13) *
Any comments please?

You can use the text of your informal challenge, plus anything else that has arisen from their rejection, like "failure to consider". With no discount, you can go all the way to PATAS if you wish, the cost is the same, the PCN amount. No cost if you win of course !
spring2action
I've actually sent THREE informal challenges, so shall I use ALL three?
Steve_999
Is it worth adding the fettered discretion in their letter dated 15th May?

"Despite you additional comments, I am unable to cancel the PCN . . . . "
Incandescent
You put in everything that has been submitted prior to the adjudication.
spring2action
I have now received the Notice of Rejection from Westminster Council - (See below) as well as the PaTAS form.






Is there anything in this letter that could be added to the previous challenges?
spring2action
angry4.gif Yesterday (after only just receiving the NoR dated 7 July 2014, which thanks me for the representation made on receipt of the Notice to Owner), I received a Charge Certificate dated 8 July 2014, increasing the penalty from £130 to £195!! See below. Why have I now received this?



spring2action
Any thoughts please?
hcandersen
You win, assuming the CC applies to the PCN which is the subject of their letter dated 7 July.
Their letter states that this is 'formal Notice of Rejection of your representations';
The regs preclude the authority from serving a CC less than 28 days after service of the NOR.
Grounds of appeal are that the authority has committed a procedural impropriety.

spring2action
Excellent - that makes me so happy!!
DancingDad
Get in Appeals Forms
Contravention did not occur
Due to CPZ being unclear due to failure to follow guidelines
PI
Unlawful service of CC

As HCA says, assuming same PCN, you win
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.