Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parked in disabled bay in Leeds
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
RK0000
Hi,

Newbie here. Parked in a Council car park in Leeds the other week, plenty of available bays so I picked one at random. Turns out this was a disabled bay, marked by a circular sign set back a bit from the bay.

Photo here...



I was in the left hand bay on this pic, note the sign.

I appealed initially on the basis that disabled bays are usually more clearly marked on the ground. It is an accident of design of the car park that this particular bay is slightly wider than the others but the paint marks on the ground are identical to all of the adjacent bays, and, as you can see, there is no wheelchair logo in that bay (why on earth not?!). My appeal has (inevitably) been turned down so I'm wondering what to do next.

I can see the logic in that bay being made available for disabled users, but what I didn't see was the sign because it is set back and nothing like any of the normal disabled signage I'm used to. There's no way on earth would I deliberately park in a disabled bay and there were at least 10 other free bays in the car park, yet here I am feeling criminalised for not seeing their non-standard signage.

I've asked for clarification as to which bays the sign refers, as the right hand bay in the photo is of equal size to the left. If that one isn't also designated disabled then its even more confusing.

Under normal circumstances after one appeal I'd normally pay but this one has really got me angry. You know when you try to do right and good by everyone then still get penalised? Well, that.

Any help or advice much appreciated. Like many others, I appreciate the incredible work you do on this site.
DancingDad
Best to post up the PCN and any other evidence you have, pics of the Car park entry sign would be useful, especially any terms relating to disabled bays.

I am tending towards your view that the bay was not clearly marked but could do with better pictures.
RK0000
Thanks ever so much for taking an interest.

Here's the sign at the entrance:





Here's the wording on the P&D machine, but as a parkmobile user I never used to get this close to the machine anyway:



and close up:





Here's the sign by the bay:




And.. the hilarity, when I visited just now there's another car in the bay with a P&D ticket but no disabled badge. Also a vehicle in the identically sized bay to the right of it, which I still can't determine is a disabled bay or not. This suggests its a common mistake to make, given the absence of signage on the ground.




Oh and here's the PCN both sides:



and



I've taken the time off but it was in the middle part of the day during the normal operating hours of the p&d.


Again any thoughts would be very much appreciated. biggrin.gif
PASTMYBEST
Have a look at this. Don't think it is compulsory but the council should be following guidence and best practice , or be able to explain why not

paragraph 5.4

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ve-mobility.pdf
Mad Mick V
As usual a Leeds PCN is pants. Unless the OP has not sent us all the PCN there is stuff missing, see here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made

And from the Appeals Regs:-

Scope of Part 2 and duty to notify rights to make representations and to appeal

3.—(1) Regulations 4 to 7 have effect where a penalty charge which has become payable under the General Regulations has not been paid and either—

(a)a penalty charge notice has been served by a civil enforcement officer under regulation 9 of the General Regulations, and a notice to owner served by the enforcement authority under regulation 19 of those Regulations; or

(b)a penalty charge notice has been served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations.

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b)that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i)those representations will be considered;

(ii)but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.


Mick
RK0000
Nope, that's all there was to the PCN, apart from the personal details I've deleted.

Are you suggesting the wording on the PCN is incorrect? That would surprise me given their continued reliance on those pieces of paper to enforce their parking restrictions. I would feel less comfortable basing an appeal on that, instead of the poor demarcation of the bay itself.

The guidance concerning diabled parking bays is very interesting - I'd love to know why they haven't slapped at least a wheelchair logo on the ground in the bay, which would have stopped me parking there in an instant.


Here's the wording of their turning down of my appeal:


----


Thank you for your letter regarding the above PCN.


The Civil Enforcement Officer issued the PCN to your vehicle as it was parked in a designated disabled parking bay without displaying a valid disabled badge.


I have noted your comments and would advise that the wording on the road surface advises “Disabled” and there is a sign to the front of the parking bays. I have enclosed photographic evidence which was taken by the CEO at the time the PCN was issued which shows the sign to the front of where your vehicle was parked.


The restriction applies to all the designated bays. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with the restriction in force.


I have considered everything in your letter but do not feel that you have made grounds for cancelling the PCN.


If you decide to pay, please refer to the ‘How To Pay’ notice enclosed with this letter. Because you wrote to us during the period when you could have paid the penalty charge at the reduced rate, I have decided to offer you a further 14 days from the date of this letter, during which you can pay the reduced amount of £35.00


If you decide to continue to appeal, please refer to the ‘Further Information’ notice also enclosed with this letter.


Yours sincerely

----


and I've just realised it contains a factual error because it states that "...the wording on the road surface advises "Disabled"..." when as you can see from my photographs it most definitely does not.

It also says "the restriction applies to all the designated bays" which implies there's more than one, but the sign is only next to the left hand bay (which is wider) not the right hand bay (which is equally as wide). So the "designated bays" element is also unclear!


Any thoughts as to what to do next?


ford poplar
you'r going to have to wait for NTO & gamble the full penalty, but def worth taking to Ind Adj. That bay,as signed, IMO is not just for Disabled, but for 'those requiring extra space'. eg parent & child in pushchair. No required Disabled road markings or correct bay signage evident.
Should be a win at adjudication IMO
RK0000
Looking at it again, I also think the sign being close to the footpath makes it feel like its a sign for pedestrians on that footpath, not pertaining to the space in front of it. Obviously I mean when you just glance at it not read it in detail... My mum is a disabled driver and its really irritating going to the supermarket with her and seeing some clearly very-able bodied people parked in the disabled bays. Here's me tarred with the same brush for not clocking the sign. It's because its so unlike any other disabled bay sign I've ever seen.

To clarify, if it goes to adjudication and I lose, it'd just be the £70 charge to pay?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RK0000 @ Tue, 21 Apr 2015 - 15:48) *
Looking at it again, I also think the sign being close to the footpath makes it feel like its a sign for pedestrians on that footpath, not pertaining to the space in front of it. Obviously I mean when you just glance at it not read it in detail... My mum is a disabled driver and its really irritating going to the supermarket with her and seeing some clearly very-able bodied people parked in the disabled bays. Here's me tarred with the same brush for not clocking the sign. It's because its so unlike any other disabled bay sign I've ever seen.

To clarify, if it goes to adjudication and I lose, it'd just be the £70 charge to pay?


Yes just the full penalty, But I for one would be suprised if you end up paying
DancingDad
Post up your challenge please, with the assertion that "disabled" is on the ground it is looking better but what did you say?
RK0000
My challenge - the over-emotional bleatings of the aggrieved of course! >sigh<


----

In virtually every other car park I have ever parked, disabled bays are CLEARLY MARKED with EDGING and a WHEELCHAIR ICON on the floor in the middle of the bay. This tells the non-disabled driver to avoid those bays. There are no such markings on the ground in the bay in which I parked. There is a sign - I am conditioned to look for signs when I use on-street parking, but I am not conditioned to look for them when parking in larger car parks. There were many free spaces in the car park at the time of my arrival so why on earth would I willingly park in a disabled bay? The only reason I parked there is because I thought it was a normal bay just like all the other similarly marked ones in the car park. That bay is incorrectly marked and it feels wrong to be criminalised for parking there in good faith (and paying for the space of course).

---


That of course is the other bugbear, the £5 I actually paid while I was parking there!


DancingDad
Over emotional informal challenges often are a very good starting point.
Yours pretty much spot on apart from admitting seeing the sign, would have been better saying that you saw it after the event and went looking but no matter.

On the contravention itself.
We have a very clearly worded sign that I doubt any adjudicator would find fault with.
But sign in a less then clear position stuck as it is on the far side of a load of bushes. Maybe enough to persuade an adjudicator that signage is inadequate, may not be.
We haven't any normal surface legend such as wording or symbol. Definite minus for the signage but again not too sure that an adjudicator would find on that alone.

If we can get hold of the Parking Place order for the car park (probably included in Leeds Off Street Parking Order) it may define what signs should be used. That may strengthen case.

Then we have the technical issues.
As Mick says, large chunks of mandatory information is missing on the PCN. These are not optional and cannot be inferred if the PCN is "read as a whole"
This should be a winner on its own but TPT adjudicators have been known to ignore even blatant chunks missing.

Enforcement Authorities have a mandatory duty to consider any challenges made before a Notice to Owner is served, the only bit in the mandatory information that they actually include is on the front of the PCN.
You state very clearly that there is no surface signs and without one you missed that it was a disabled bay.
They say there is one.
Your photos show there isn't.
How can they discharge their duty to consider when they haven't checked your assertion or if they have, blatantly lie about it.
Failing to consider is something that TPT adjudicators often accept.

Overall, winnable, technically 100% but cannot guarantee what an adjudicator will say on the day.

PLs note I am talking about this going to adjudication (no extra cost but will risk discount, all or nothing basically) as unlikely that Leeds will accept even a carefully worded challenge at Notice to Owner stage. If you are prepared, wait for the NTO but in the meantime, email Leeds and ask for a copy of the relevant Off Street Parking Order for the car park. Electronic (PDF) copy will be fine.
RK0000
Thanks for the info all, I'll see how it pans out. I should have made it clear in the appeal that I didn't see the sign at the time, obviously if I did I wouldn't have parked there!

Do you think if I get photos of all the people who park in the same bay by accident (such as the one I saw today), that'll help my case? I only work nearby and I reckon I could get at least 20 by NtO time (obviously not including pics of car reg numbers).
PASTMYBEST
Paragraph 9 re disabled parking spaces shows leed policy re bsi 8300 2009

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s8...%20-%20Sept.pdf


Para 4 shows the design they should use. Should be a slam dunk incorrectly marked

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin...ent=q&XSS=3

LINK OPENS A PDF DOC
hcandersen
delete.

I haven't got a clue what's going on here.

The OP refers to car park. The PCN and sign refer to 'Parking Area'.

The contravention is for use on-street only.

The authority's reply refers to road.

WTF is this area?

Is it a car park or is it on-street? The authority think it's on a road, in which case the requirements of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs apply and as it's not marked accordingly the contravention did not occur.
DancingDad
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 21 Apr 2015 - 21:13) *
Paragraph 9 re disabled parking spaces shows leed policy re bsi 8300 2009

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s8...%20-%20Sept.pdf


Para 4 shows the design they should use. Should be a slam dunk incorrectly marked

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin...ent=q&XSS=3

LINK OPENS A PDF DOC


Certainly a very good question to ask. Why they have no regard for their own policy in marking disabled spaces ?
RK0000
It's definitely a car park! Do you mean to say the signage pertains to on street parking? I'll post what I find when I get more info from them. Away on work business next few days so it will be a short delay.

What surprises me is that it's never cropped up on this forum before. Especially as when I went back today to take more pics there was a car in the space with a p&d ticket but no disabled badge.

I'm tempted to do an FOI request to find out how many code 40 pcn's they issue in that car park, and how many appeals they receive.

Again I can only reiterate my gratitude for your help and advice, singlehandedly restoring my faith in the internet.
RK0000
Update - Leeds City Council have now sent me a plan for the car park:




I've marked up where I was parking, which as you can see, despite the sign, is NOT designated as a disabled bay.

The defence rests, m'Lud.... wink.gif
Incandescent
Seems to me Leeds have condemned themselves by their own map ! You need to appeal this all the way.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 24 Apr 2015 - 20:29) *
Seems to me Leeds have condemned themselves by their own map ! You need to appeal this all the way.

+1
RK0000
Absolutely! I've got:

1/ the lack of signage on the ground is in contravention of their own rules regarding the marking of disabled bays per the British Standard

2/ their rejection of my initial appeal asserts the signage does exist on the ground when it doesn't.

3/ their own map of the designations of the bays shows it isn't a designated disabled bay.

I'd have thought any one of those on its own would win but taken together...

It dismays me how many others they've caught out with this. It would be interesting to know, assuming I win, if they could be compelled to make the necessary changes to clarify the status of the bay. It would feel even better to know I'd helped cut off an easy unfair money spinner.

Will let you know the outcome. Thanks all.
DancingDad
You said Leeds supplied the map.
In answer to what question?
And was there a covering letter?
RK0000
Apologies I should have been clearer.

As per the advice further up the thread, I used the "contact us" form on the Leeds Council website and asked for the off street parking area for the location in question.

My words were simply "please can you send me the relevant off street parking order for Maude Street Car Park"



Within the hour I was sent the map I posted along with two TRO's

"please find the relevant TRO's which relate to Maude Street"

One of the TRO's is only concerned with motorbike and car club parking, the other one relates to the p&d so I've uploaded that one and it's here (I hope this works):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2-DmG6BSd...iew?usp=sharing

They've highlighted the Maude Street section - I need to have a better look through the document but it doesn't seem to mention any disabled bays in Maude Street.
Mad Mick V
They've sent you an On-Street Order which doesn't relate to the car park---probably just its access road.

You need to request Leeds City Council (Off-Street Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2010 and its amendments to date.

Mick
PASTMYBEST
Paragraph 2 of page 92 of this doc say's it all


http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/A-Z%20of%20Pa...0Nov%202013.pdf



if road markings are missing or shown to be incorrect, the PCN will be
cancelled and arrangements made for rectification.


Game set and match I think
RK0000
Mick I'm beginning to think from the paperwork that this is actually being classed by the council as "On street" not "Off street" - the sign at the entrance says Maude Street Parking Area for example, and another detail I missed mentioning is that the map and TRO were sent to me by the highways department (if that makes any difference). This despite it looking for all the world like a car park.

Pastmybest - thanks for that document too, cracking.
DancingDad
Difficult to class it as On street when it seems to be a fully enclosed area Off Street.
But hey ho, strange things happen in the world of parking.
If it does turn out to be on street, signs are not as per TSRGD 2002 so they will need authorisation from Sec of State.

But I'm not convinced that the area will not show in the relevant Off Street Order
PASTMYBEST
Leeds just keep shooting themselves in the foot check this out bottom of the page


http://www.leedstravel.info/cdmf-webserver...ber=LEEDSCP0024
RK0000
Oh my goodness, I just spit tea! Incredible.
DancingDad
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 25 Apr 2015 - 11:34) *
Leeds just keep shooting themselves in the foot check this out bottom of the page


http://www.leedstravel.info/cdmf-webserver...ber=LEEDSCP0024


Spit tea!!...... I just got a snort of coffee up my nose.
Please warn us next time blush.gif

So to summarise:-
Clear pole sign
Iffy position of sign
No surface legend/sign
Informal rejection says surface is marked
TRO (on street) does not show disabled spaces
TRO (Off street) required
Map included with On Street TRO shows all car park spaces but no disabled.
Leeds specify markings to standards but don't use them
Leeds advise on car park info that no disabled bays exist.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 25 Apr 2015 - 12:44) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 25 Apr 2015 - 11:34) *
Leeds just keep shooting themselves in the foot check this out bottom of the page


http://www.leedstravel.info/cdmf-webserver...ber=LEEDSCP0024


Spit tea!!...... I just got a snort of coffee up my nose.
Please warn us next time blush.gif

So to summarise:-
Clear pole sign
Iffy position of sign
No surface legend/sign
Informal rejection says surface is marked
TRO (on street) does not show disabled spaces
TRO (Off street) required
Map included with On Street TRO shows all car park spaces but no disabled.
Leeds specify markings to standards but don't use them
Leeds advise on car park info that no disabled bays exist.



But we will extend the discount period for you to pay for a further 14 days


hcandersen
Or:
The PCN cites a contravention code which applies to on-street parking only; (evidence)
Their response letter confirms that the authority consider that the contravention occurred on-street by reference to 'road' and to the term 'designated bay', the latter only occurring on-street;(evidence)

By virtue of being considered to be an on-street contravention, the traffic authority are bound to place traffic signs to the standard required by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and regulations made thereunder, which signs have been specified by the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002, as amended. (The law).

The authority's letter draws the OP's attention specifically to signs and markings which do not meet this standard and which are not specified and erroneously draws the conclusion that the restriction is signed correctly. It is not.

Summary:
If the contravention occurred on-street, then the signs are incorrect and do not meet the standard specified in law.

If the contravention occurred off-street then, as the Secretary of State has not specified signs to be used, those in situ would be OK providing they are detailed in the conditions of use of the car park located at the ticket machine and the entrance. However, the contravention and the authority's response refer to on-street therefore the signs might be OK, but the contravention and the authority's reasoning are incorrect.

Either way, they're b*******d.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 25 Apr 2015 - 09:48) *
Paragraph 2 of page 92 of this doc say's it all


http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/A-Z%20of%20Pa...0Nov%202013.pdf



if road markings are missing or shown to be incorrect, the PCN will be
cancelled and arrangements made for rectification.


Game set and match I think



Maude street is listed as a council owned car park on page 73 of this doc.
RK0000
Update - still no sign of an NtO... any idea when it normally arrives? It's been almost a month since my informal appeal rejected.
DancingDad
Gawd knows.
Normally I'd expect one by now but they may be quietly letting it slide and time out.
I assume your postal address is correct on the DVLA V5 log book ?
Not moved recently?
And you own the car, not hired or company car?
RK0000
Yep, my car and address on the v5. Not moved recently either.

My collection of (non incriminating) photos of other vehicles parked unwittingly in the same space is growing steadily. Looks like a mistake which is commonly made.

DancingDad
One of the points often overlooked in parking where signs and lines are concerned is that while some people deliberately flout the law, many, the majority, honestly try to comply with signs.
But if the signs aren't clear enough, people make mistakes.
If enough people make the same mistake, it really should be a the same as a light bulb going off above the enforcement authority's head saying Ooops, we have a problem.
Keep taking those photos...... if (when) the NTO arrives and if it gets to adjudication, we can use them to show that the signage isn't good enough.
RK0000
Hi all,

Finally(!) received my NtO for this one. Can I just check that the box I should tick on the form is "The contravention did not occur" ??

Here's my representation:


---

Dear Sir or Madam,


Ref: PCN****** date, detail etc...


Let us start with one important assumption – no reasonable person would wilfully park in a designated disabled bay. My mother suffers from MS and has a disabled badge, so the issue of disabled parking does come up in my life fairly frequently.

I have numerous grounds to challenge this PCN which I shall list below:


1/. You did not fulfil your obligation to properly consider my informal appeal

In my informal appeal, I stated that there is no indication on the ground that the bay is for disabled users. In your correspondence rejecting that appeal (dated ****) you state:

“... I have noted your comments and would advise that the wording on the road surface advises “Disabled”...”

As this photograph of the bay clearly shows, there is no such wording on the road surface

(here I've got a jpeg of the photo I posted earlier in this thread)

...so your assertion is patently not correct.


2/. The bay is not marked in accordance with your own guidelines.

The reason I inadvertently parked in the bay was because it is not marked in the way that disabled bays are normally and correctly marked.

In your own “Leeds Parking Policy” supplementary document (which is viewable here http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s8...%20-%20Sept.pdf ), section 9 deals with disabled parking provision and paragraph 9.6.4 on page 25 clearly states:

“The access, size and layout of the spaces should conform to those specified in
BS8300:2009 paragraphs 4.2.2 (Access to and location of designated off-street parking
spaces), 4.2.3 (Design and layout of designated off-street parking spaces) and where
appropriate 4.2.4 (Multi-storey car parks).”

And when we look at the relevant section of BS8300:2009 as detailed in your guidelines we find the following detail:


(I've screen grabbed the relevant section and inserted it here)


So according to your own guidelines, a correctly marked Leeds City Council disabled bay should look like this:


(I've taken a photo of a correctly marked disabled bay and inserted it here)


Had the bay been correctly marked like the one in the above photograph, and as per BS8300:2009 I would not have inadvertently parked in it.

Seeing as the bay is incorrectly marked and not in accordance with your own guidelines, I will furthermore draw your attention to page 92 of your own “A-Z of Parking” document which states:

“... if road markings are missing or shown to be incorrect, the PCN will be cancelled and arrangements made for rectification.”



3/. It is apparent that the bay may not have been statutorily designated as disabled

I wrote to Leeds City Council to obtain the relevant parking order for the Maude Street parking area and was kindly sent the map below, to which I have identified the bay in question:


(this is the map I already posted earlier in this thread)


As can be seen, the designation of the bay on this map is “Pay and Display Parking” - it is not designated a Disabled Persons Parking Bay.

This is reinforced by the www.Leedstravel.info web page for Maude Street which looks like this:

(I've screen-grabbed the relevant web page and put it here)


Note the bottom of the web page which states “No disabled spaces available” which further contradicts your assertion on the PCN that the bay is a designated disabled bay.


4/. This is a common mistake being made by users of the car park

Whilst I believe the above three grounds for appeal are each strong enough to overturn this PCN in their own right, since receiving the PCN and commencing my challenge, I have informally been visiting the car park to see if anyone else is inadvertently mistaking the bay for a P&D bay as I did.

It is obviously by no means a scientific study – I visit the car park occasionally when I have time, and I do not have comparable data for a correctly marked disabled bay – but what I have regularly found are cars parked in the same bay, as evidenced by the additional photographs enclosed with this representation.

(I've got pics of ten other cars parked in the same bay which I'll be adding to the mix)


I find it hard to believe that so many able-bodied motorists would deliberately park in that bay, especially when on most occasions there are numerous other empty bays in the car park. What seems more likely is that they park in the bay, as I did, because it is incorrectly marked and it is therefore not registering with them as a disabled bay.


It is my contention that in the light of all of the information outlined above, this PCN should be cancelled forthwith, and I would of course welcome the chance to discuss all of the above at adjudication.


Hugs and kisses....


---



I'd very much hope that unlike some of the other more contentious challenges and appeals on this forum, this one is a no-brainer!

I will of course let you know the outcome.

And just to reiterate my very great gratitude to all who have contributed to this thread.

Thanks all.
DancingDad
QUOTE
Let us start with one important assumption – no reasonable person would wilfully park in a designated disabled bay. My mother suffers from MS and has a disabled badge, so the issue of disabled parking does come up in my life fairly frequently.
Given that there were many empty spaces when I parked, I had no reason or wish to park in a disabled bay. It simply was not marked in a clear enough fashion.

Then carry on yours.

Incidentally, you may find a rather horse laugh coming from the parking office at your first line.
All too often I see people taking advantage of an empty space that is very clearly marked disabled rather then going an extra few feet.
But you got to start somewhere.
RK0000
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 13 Jun 2015 - 22:35) *
All too often I see people taking advantage of an empty space that is very clearly marked disabled rather then going an extra few feet.


Blimey - I think I'm naive. rolleyes.gif In this particular instance there's no yardage to be gained by parking in that bay, it's actually further from the car park entrance than most of the other bays.

Thanks for the edit though.
hcandersen
IMO, your representations in order of priority are that the contravention did not occur. This arises because nowhere on the sign at the entrance or on the sign by the machines does it state that any bays are designated for the use of specified classes of user or that parking in a 'disabled' bay is an offence punishable with a PCN. Furthermore, these terms and conditions do not even state or imply that there are any such bays in the car park or how they are marked - free parking for disabled badge holders which is stated on the signs is, by implication, available in any bay.

The authority's whole case rests on the use of a non-standard sign with non-standard wording, in particular its font size, placed in such a way that if a motorist is not on notice that such signs may exist in the car park they might be seen as having effect, whatever effect that might be, outside the boundaries of the car park. In addition, as I now know, the only reference to a PCN is included in this sign in non-specified font. As regards this point, I would refer the authority to its own policies and standards published in this document.. pages *** to *** refer where the council's standards in this regard are absolutely clear and, I would argue, binding as regards their use, whether on or off-street.

ford poplar
Keep your reps short & concise. Council officers reading have the attention span of goldfish. (No disrespect to goldfish).
DancingDad
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 - 13:01) *
Keep your reps short & concise. Council officers reading have the attention span of goldfish. (No disrespect to goldfish).


Normally I'd agree but in this case, it is more laying stall out for adjudicator while leaving plenty of room for failures to deliver.

Suggested challenge is readable and clear.
Not our fault if the considering occifer prefers blowing bubbles to doing their job and actually reading something.
RK0000
Hi all,

Just returned from a fortnight abroad to find a letter from Leeds City Council accepting my appeal and cancelling the pcn. rolleyes.gif

This couldn't have happened without the incredibly knowledgeable support of the amazing people on this forum - many thanks indeed to everyone who contributed to this thread.



DancingDad
Excellent, sense has prevailed.
Well done for sticking with it.

Be nice to see the letter pls.

And of interest as you often use the car park, have they changed the markings?
RK0000
Apologies for delay, been a bit busy.

Letter here:





And no, there's no sign of any change to the signing of the bay, yet.

Thanks again.
DancingDad
Many Thanks.
Non committal or what?

They probably won't change the signage until they refurbish the car park, if at all.
Trouble is most people will pay up and not argue, so no pressure to get it right.
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.