Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Arthur Dent

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arthur Dent

  1. Hi Chaps, Currently not in a "predicament" - well at least not as far as PATAS goes (yet) I originally posted the question because I'd heard (but couldn't at that time find) that there were only 6 grounds for appeal at tribunal stage and wondered what they were. I am confident that my rejection of the P CN is fine as the signage is missing and should it go to tribunal because the council refuse to back down, then the tribunal would agree with me that the signage is indeed missing. Interesting discussion though folks. Cheers Art (still not heard from the council btw)
  2. This is a challenge to the original P CN. The 14-day 50% off period ends tomorrow from the original issue date of the P CN. Not got as far as the NtO yet - and hopefully, it won't get that far - but I'm happy to take it all the way to tribunal if necessary : ) Letter challenging the P CN included photos showing distinct lack of signage and CEO's attempt of providing proof of the contravention by photographing the restriction plate for the bus stop on the opposite side of the road, rather than the unsigned loading bay that I'd parked in! Art
  3. Thanks Jamberson I'm hopeful of my challenge because the restriction on the bay that I parked in (as defined in the current TRO and not affected by any subsequent amendments) is different to the underlying CPZ (under which I was issued the P CN) and the restriction plate for the bay is missing. Sent my challenge by registered post and they received it 2 days later - at least here is an on-line squiggle on Royal Mail's Track and Trace saying someone signed for it. So far, the council haven't even acknowledged my letter. Is that normal? Art
  4. Hi Michael, I'd found them - I was rather hoping they explained in more detail. Thanks for the reply. Take #7 as an example "The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid - the Order creates the contravention." What does 'the Order creates the contravention' mean?? In order to succesfully challenge a PCN at tribunal, you have to challenge on the specific grounds? Art
  5. Hi Jamberson Post #14 in the following thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?385730-Taken-to-court-even-though-parking-fee-was-paid Art
  6. Hi Folks, Apparently PATAS only allow six grounds for appeal - otherwise they throw out your appeal automatically. Have searched the PATAS website but cannot find any info on this. Can anyone provide a relevant link? Cheers, Art
  7. Hey Sam, That sounds like a result. Don't get your hopes up just yet but it sounds very promising. Is there just one sign facing the wrong way - or is there only one sign? Seems that tribunals have been refusing challenges recently on what are viewed as "minor technicalities" - ie yellow lines incorrectly terminated or non-continuous because of a repair patch - as the "intention is clear". I'm hoping that in my particlar case I can argue that the intention isn't clear because without the sign (or indeed examining the TRO and remembering the restriction) you wouldn't know what the restriction was for that particular bay. Fingers crossed for ya, Art
  8. Hi Sam, I can't claim any credit for the wording, that came from TheBogsDollocks. You will need to tailor it to your specific needs howeverr, I'd recommend getting hold of the relevant legislation if you can to check the sections that may be relevant. I don't think the 45 mins before parking was allowed will cut any ice I'm afraid, but I'm no expert in this As far as "playing dumb" - I don't know. It wouldn't hurt to say (a) you are a non-local and (b) it is a first-time offence, but Sheffield City Council only allow one informal challenge - so I'd be tempted to go in with any and all legal stuff, I'd try to find the Secretary of State's advice on the size of a CPZ if you can - perhaps the good experienced folk on this forum could help out? Art
  9. Hi again Sam, One idea that you may be able to explore (no idea whether it will carry any weight or not) is the size of the CPZs. The Secretary of State suggests that a CPZ should include no more than around 12 streets and that it is unreasonable to expect someone to remember the parking restrictions when entering the CPZ if it is larger than this. Now Tower Hamlets have several distinct areas on their map and the zones of interest as far as you are concerned - because it looks like where you parked (the yellow star on the map below) is on the border between two zones - Zone A2 and Zone A6. Being charitable to Tower Hamlets and saying that Zone A2 has the regulations relevant to you, I've counted at least 44 roads in that Zone. If, as I suspect, Zone A6 applies (Zone 6 applying to the western side of Spital Street and Zone A2 applying to the eastern-side of Spital Street), then the above advice is even more in your favour, I count around 75 streets in Zone A6. You may be able to contest the underlying regulation of the CPZ on the basis of its size. Here's the map: Bogs (in a post on my thread) suggested adding the following to any letter of appeal: Furthermore, 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 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. Bogs will probably be along shortly to offer better advice. He seems to know what he's talking about! Hope all of the above helps, Art
  10. Thanks Jamberson for all your help and advice. I'll update the thread when I have some news. Letter contesting the P CN went off this morning by recorde d delivery. If they still want to persue it, I'll take it to a Traffic Tribunal Art
  11. Don't know whether that is a regulation or simply guidance. The CPZ that I'm currently having problems with in Sheffield has at least 60 streets in the Inner Zone alone - and the CPZ signs are on the entrance to the much larger Outer Zone! It would be useful indeed if it was to be that the whole CPZ is invalid because there are far too many streets within it. Sheffield hasn't partitioned the Inner and Outer Zones as I've seen elsewhere (as indeen in this thread - Tower Hamlets). Here's a picture of Sheffield's CPZ. If you can't sleep tonight, have a go at counting all of the streets within the Inner and Outer Zones - or just the Inner Zone if you are in a hurry! Art
  12. Here's a screen shot of what I'm getting. Doesn't matter which browser (currently using FF for this post). I get it when I'm using my usual browser too (that's Opera). Top banner seems to be Google related - I've just searched for and bought 2 jumpers from M&S with 40% off: and that's a screenful! Art
  13. Hi Jamberson, Yes, I have a copy of the full TRO (all 220 pages of it) thanks to Michael Browne. The Traffic Regulations Officer also sent me the relevant parts by email - which lists the bay as a Loading Bay. He also confirmed that the amendments to the TRO since it was made active (26th Oct 2008) didn't affect that bay. So, it is a Loading Bay, with no appropriate signage so it is unenforceable (is that the correct splelling?) - correct? The TRO negates (or over-rides) the CPZ for that bay and as the signage is missing, it is a restriction-free bay - correct? Bay I was parked in(on the SE side) is decribed in schedule 11.01 Sect 22 of the TRO. The bay on the opposite side of the road (the NW side), that the CEO photographed as evidence of my transgression is described in schedule 1.01 Sect 217 Relevant parts pasted below: Cheers, Art
  14. Update: I've received a reply from the Traffic Regulation Office saying that they don't consider that laybay as a loading bay and as such are relying on the underlying restriction of the CPZ - namely Mon-Sat 8:00am - 6:30pm. Surely if the TRO says it is a loading bay, but the signage isn't present and there has been no amendment to change the designation of the bay, then they can't simply say that because there's no sign then the CPZ restrictions take over? Can they?? Any further help/advice welcome. Art
  15. For the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to be invalid just one sign has to be missing. However, the signs need only be placed on the entrance to the CPZ - but on every road. You need to check every road into the CPZ. If there isn't a sign on Spital Street and the boundary of the CPZ crosses Spital Street, you should be home free. If Spital Street starts inside the CPZ then you won't see a sign on the road. Bear in mind, for roads less than 5m in width, only one sign is required but if it is over 5m then it requires two signs - one on each sign. Hope this helps, Art
  16. I am aware of GiffGaff who piggyback on the O2 network. On the Tablet PC and Dongle Gigabags for £5/mth you get 500Mb of data, for £7.50/mth you get 1Gb of data and for £12/mth you get 3Gb of data. These plans do not include voice (ie zero min per month). On Phone plans (which give you voice too - and I asked for between 500 and 1000 x-network minutes) a £12/mth goodybag gives you 250 UK minutes, unlimites internet and a £15/mth plan only ups the voice alowance to 400mins. TETHERING however is forbidden on Goodybags (there is some confusion around the £10/mth Goodybag). If GiffGaff spot you tethering they will (at worst) suspend your account so you won't be able to make receive calls let alone use data afaik. So, back to my original question.... Art
  17. Who me? Just run CCleaner, Malwarebytes, RKill and AVG yesterday and nothing came up. Don't think I have a virus. Corrupt profile perhaps? If you are admin, could you look at that? Art
  18. Hi again Sam Looking at the link posted by Michael above (post #2 in this thread) I'd check each and every street entering the Red Zoned Sunday restrictions CPZ for evidence of Controlled Parking Zone signs. As you stand to reclaim £265 - it is worth doing in my book. If all the signage is there and you just didn't see it, you'll probably just have to take the hit. Art
  19. I'm sorry Sam. Not seeing the signs is only grounds for appeal if the signs are missing or obscured in some way. If the signs are there and clearly visible and you didn't see them, then its your mistake. I agree with you that towing seems a bit drastic, however you said in your OP that 5 other vehicles were also towed. Seems like you were treated the same as everyone else - harshly but equally. If the sign was obscured in some way, like this No Loading sign nestling between two traffic lights in Sheffield, then you would have good grounds for appeal as the sign is not easily visible. In the same way, if there was a bush obscuring the sign again you'd have grounds for appeal. As you said you live in Kent, I'd use Google Street View to check for Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) signs on all the streets where the zone is in force. Any missing signs could invalidate the whole CPZ. On roads over 5m in width, there should be 2 signs, one each side of the road. On narrower roads, only one sign is required. This is what you are looking for: Hope this is useful. Sadly, I don't think you have valid grounds to appeal from what you have said unless you can find a missing sign (you know what I mean)! Art
  20. Nope, Because I am posting as me on this forum and not a guest (can guests post - I think not), I am logged on - but I can still see a whole bunch of adverts at the top of every page I visit Art
  21. Thanks again ims. I meant noob in the sense that I didn't know what a CMC was and that it was an obvious abbreviation for the cognescenti! Thanks, Art
×
×
  • Create New...