Hi, If you have the date and time that you called Wesminster Parking Services to ask about the suspension details and were advised that only the first 5 bays were suspended and you have photographic evidence that you parked in bay 6, then submit those as the grounds for your appeal against this PCN. The Council will then check their phone records and listen to the advice that you were given on the day by their own parking advisor and will decide whether your version of events is accurate. If they do, then they will cancel the PCN. Also, you state that your PCN was issued at 2020 hrs when parking restrictions cease at 1830 hrs. That regulation and dispensation to park free after control hours is only applicable to bays that are not subject to any additional restrictions, such as in this case, a suspended bay. Good luck with your appeal. If the Council reject your appeal and you can prove by the date and time supplied that you were given incorrect information by their parking advisor and that you relied upon this information to park where you did, then you may be able to pursuade the adjudicator at PATAS that you parked correctly, as advised by the Council. If you take your case for adjudication to PATAS and the adjudicator agrees that you have shown proof of your position regarding the PCN, then he is likely to rule in your favour and cancel the PCN. If, however, you are not able to prove your case because the Council submit a recording of your telephone call to their parking service on the date and time that you say you phoned them and it shows that either the information you provided to their parking advisor was incorrect or that the advice received was not properly followed, then you will have to pay the full parking fine. This is rather than the reduced amount payable for the first 14 days after the PCN was issued. My advice is to ask the Council to provide you with the details of your telephone call to their parking service so that you can judge for yourself whether you have grounds to appeal the PCN:jaw:. Dan8

I received a PCN on 31 August last year (2011) from Westminster City Council for parking in a suspended disabled parking bay. I appealed the PCN on 2 grounds: a) that I had telephoned the council's parking services when I saw the confusing sign about exactly which 6 metres of the bay was suspended and was told that it was the first 6 metres of a long, undivided disabled parking bay in Vincent Square, and b) that the notice sign of the suspension was non-compliant. My case went to PATAS yesterday, 24 January 2012 and I won. The adjudicator accepted my evidence that I had been incorrectly advised by Westminster City Council's parking services advisor about exactly which 6 metres of the bay was suspended and that I had acted in reliance of the advice received by parking after the first 6 metres of the long disabled parking bay, as advised. My most crucial piece of evidence was that the suspension notice posted on the time plate beside the long disabled parking bay identified the single suspended bay by stating that it was the first 6 metres nearest to the junction of Vincent Square with Hatherley Street. The parking advisor had told me that this was the first 6 metres of the bay as one drives to it, as Vincent Square is a one way system. In fact, it was the last 6 metres of the long disabled bay that was suspended. So, I pointed out to the adjudicator that without the council providing photographic or cartographic evidence in their response to my appeal to show precisely where Hatherley Street was located vis-a-vis Vincent Square and this long disabled parking bay, it was not possible to prove that I had committed a parking offence at all by parking where I did. The adjudicator agreed with me and allowed my appeal. He did however, comment with suprise that Westminster City Council had not supplied a map, at the very least, to show exactly where Hatherley Street was located in relation to Vincent Square, to enable the identification of precisely which 6 metres of the long disabled parking bay was actually suspended. The adjudicator looked up the location on Google maps during my hearing and saw that Hatherley Street met Vincent Square beyond the long marked disabled parking bay. This showed him that the part of the bay that was actually suspended was the last 6 metres, rather than the first 6 metres, as advised to me. But, he said that it was not his job to submit evidence on behalf of Westminster City Council which might support their position that a parking contravention had indeed been committed. On the issue of non-compliance of the parking bay suspension sign, the adjudicator did not make any offical finding. He commented that he might have been persuaded to accept my evidence on this matter that the sign was non-compliant and that the council had no authorisation from the Secretary of State, as required by statute, for using a non-compliant variation of this sign. But, he said that as he had already accepted my evidence on my first point of appeal, he did not have to make a ruling on this second plank of my case. So, my advice to anyone receiving a PCN for parking in a suspended bay is to thoroughly examine the evidence provided by the council to ensure that they have provided proof of the contravention by supplying maps and photographic evidence such as street name plates for proper identification of their position that a PCN is justified. This is the second time that I have successfully challenged a PCN on the grounds that the council have failed to identify the precise location of the contravention by not providing proof of the location by a map or photographs of the street name plate! Hope this information helps those in similar circumstances.

I won my PCN appeal at this junction. My grounds for appeal were that I was following diversion signs posted on the roadway which directed me towards Bloomsbury Street. I argued that roadworks signs and diversion signs take precedence over the permanent signs such as the 'ahead only' white arrow on a blue sign. I also argued that the diversion signs also made the existing, permanent signage of the 'ahead only' direction very confusing to the driver. The DVD evidence also was unclear as to exactly where I had :violin:turned right. But, I also had a very sympathetic adjudicator who accepted my arguments and cancelled my PCN. Hope that helps. Good luck.

I WON my appeal yesterday against a PCN issued for a yellow box junction contravention. My PCN was issued for the YBJ contravention at Battersea Bridge Road/ Westgate Road/ Parkgate Road junction. I successfully argued that this yellow box junction was not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 diagrams 1043 and 1044. Transport for London had argued that the reason that the YBJ at that junction was non-compliant was because of the presence of a red route at that junction which had double red lines drawn. In its letter rejecting my appeal TfL had said, "TfL has deemed it practical to not draw the yellow box marking above the double red lines or vice versa, as this will further create complication with the 2 road marks." My position was that if this was indeed TfL's rationale for the non-compliance then it needed to seek authorisation for this non-compliance from the Secretary of State, which TfL had not done. This made the YBJ non-compliant and thus, unenforceable for any PCN issued for it. Fortunately, the adjudicator agreed with me and quashed my PCN. Just for information, the adjudicator rejected my primary defence to the PCN that the left hand lane at this junction had been free at the time when my car was in the YBJ and, I could have used it as a viable exit. I said that the fact that I did not use it was because my car had been moving forward slowly in my right hand lane. But the adjudicator rejected this defence stating that even though there had been a viable exit for me I had chosen not to take it. The adjudicator also rejected my defence that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward. She said that the DVD footage showed me having stopped for 10 seconds, which she ruled was "a finding of fact". She also rejected my contention that as the camera was sited over 20 meters back from the YBJ there was a possibility of some distortion on perspective which accounted for my explanation that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward. But she did accept my argument that TfL had inserted the incomplete contravention code of 31, rather than 31J, in the PCN documents, because the latter is the correct code for PCN's issued using CCTV evidence, which had been so in my case. In any case, she quashed my PCN. So, if anyone else wishes to appeal a PCN issued at this YBJ do so quickly BEFORE TfL get this YBJ compliant by getting authorisation for its non-compliance from the Secretary of State. And good luck all!!

Yes and no. It depends on what grounds the initial qualification was for the IB entitlement and if the corroborating medical evidence supplied for it was reasonably current for no new medical assessment to be required. It also depends on how busy your local JCP office was at the time it received your switch-over claim form as there are decision targets that have been introduced to avoid claimants having many months of waiting for an adjudication while receiving the appeal rate benefit throughout that time. It is a cost saving exercise really! But well done for now.

Hi P45, I am so sorry to hear of your plight. But for the Grace of God go I! Let me send you the link to 'Appealing Against Incapacity Benefit' that helped me tremendously. It is a briefing note written by the Welfare Rights Unit at Leicestershire County Council and it was most insightful for me. In addition, I printed out the appendix at the end which is the GP's input on your behalf explaining your medical conditions and how they impact on your daily life in terms of what you are able and unable to do. If you could get your GP to fill it in on your behalf and send it signed and dated to your local Jobcentreplus office then it may make all the difference in your appeal against that dreaded decision. Also, you may be better advised to opt for depression and general anxiety syndrome in addition to your acute physiological medical conditions and utilise both the physical and psychological impairments as the basis of your appeal. Here is the link: I'm afraid I've received a message to say that I cannot post links in this message. Well just go to leics.gov.uk/appealing_incapacity_benefit.doc. Hope this helps. Good luck.

Just an update on my situation. I made my appeal last month, November 2010 and I received my adjudication last week, on 20 December to tell me that my appeal had been successful upon re-consideration by a different adjudication officer at Incapacity Benefit. The decision letter stated that I did not have to face any further medical assessments until 11 November 2011, unless my circumstances or medical conditions changed. My benefit payments resumed from the date of the initial stoppage. I received an interim payment last week and the remainder today. Until now I had only received the reduced payments payable during the appeal process. I am so relieved, especially as I received this decision within just over a month of lodging my appeal. I submitted several letters from my hospital consultants confirming each of my different medical conditions, plus a medical conditions appeal form completed by my GP and a letter from a solicitor I contacted directly via the Community Legal Services telephone helpline. I did not have to pay the solicitor as I received this help for free under the government's free Legal Help Scheme available to Income Support recipients. I think that the amount of corroborating medical evidence that I submitted as part of my appeal and the solicitor's letter as a backup helped to clinch my appeal. If any of this information about submitting up-to-date medical evidence from the hospital consultants under whose care one is, as well as one's GP's confirmation of medical conditions suffered and how this impacts on daily tasks is useful for you, then please utilise it for your appeal too. I hope that you will succeed sooner rather than later. Goodluck, in any case.

Thank you so much for your very helpful reply. I had NO idea that the mental health threshold was much lower at only 10 points. So, I am only 1 point short of this requirement and hope to appeal it. I take on board your advice that I must lodge my appeal right away and I shall do this today. Although, I do not really have the resilience or stamina needed for a protracted fight. Nor the fortitude to queue up for the entire day to see a CAB advisor, so I may jump to the CLS route that eventually helped you. I don't suppose you have a land line number for them as that would be really helpful? I cannot afford the cost of non-geographical calls which their website advertises. Thanks again for your immense help.

Hi, I have just received notification that I have failed my Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit as I only got 9 points of the 15 points that I needed to retain my benefit entitlement. My main reason for claiming this benefit is due to suffering from General Anxiety Disorder and had evidence of this from my GP and Clinical Psychologist. But, it was not enough. I also suffer from back and knee problems for which I also provided medical confirmation from my hospital specialist. That too was not good enough. Can anyone help with advice on tackling this appeal? Thanks

Unfortunately, I did not take any pics that day as I had no way of knowing that I'd get a PCN a week later. And the roadworks were temporary ones so I expect they will have relocated elsewhere by now. It seems to me from the advice on this forum so far that my best way forward is to appeal the PCN on grounds of the vague location listed and add the problems encountered by the temporary diversion signs on the roadway on that day and the blue ahead only sign being on the lamp post after the junction at which I turned off Great Russell Street. I wonder how often such appeals succeed for the many tens of PCNs issued daily?! It is such a lucrative source of income for councils.

I followed the diversion signs from the traffic light junction where Charing Cross Road crosses New Oxford Street and becomes Tottenham Court Road. I was headed to Bloomsbury Way. The diversion signs took me onto Great Russell Street and from there I turned into a side street, which might have been Bloomsbury Street, from where I turned onto Bloomsbury Way. The traffic light junction where I turned off Great Russell Street did not have any directional arrow lights, nor a prohibitory sign restricting my turn off, although just beyond the traffic light junction I did see a blue 'ahead only' sign posted. But, that was located AFTER the traffic light junction where I turned off from Great Russell Street. So, my appeal is the confusion of the temporary diversion signs posted due to the road closure caused by roadworks and the fact that the 'ahead only' blue sign referred to in the PCN was located after the point at the traffic light junction where I turned off Great Russell Street. There was also no prohibitory turning sign or directional arrow on the traffic light sign. Just don't know if Camden Council can reject my appeal if they are not responsible for siting the temporary 'diversion' signs on the roadway. These may have been put there by whatever company needed the roadway closed due to its road works.

Thanks. The 4 photos supplied by Camden do not show any road names and I have not been able to access the online video function on the council's website as it tells me that my PCN number and car registration are incorrect. Yet, the paper PCN does correctly show my car registration. My main defence that seems best to apply is the confusion of their temporary road closure/diversion road way signs that led me down this route.The right hand turn off Charing Cross Road onto New Oxford Street was closed due to road works. But, I do not know if that's been a useful tack though for those who have successfully appealed. Even though that is the reality of how come I got routed down the turn off Great Russell Street that I took which generated this cctv based PCN.

As I said before, I'm not quite certain that it was Bloomsbury Street where I turned off Great Russell Street, but there is definitely no left hand turn option at those traffic lights as Bloomsbury Street is one way traffic. I know with certainty that the traffic lights are not signed with any directional arrows and the blue ahead only sign is posted after the traffic junction.

Yes. I think that the turning from Great Russell Street was onto Bloomsbury Street at the traffic lights junction. I was headed for Bloomsbury Way and the usual right turn from Charing Cross Road was closed due to roadworks and the temporary diversion signs on the roadway led to Great Russell Street from where this was the way to Bloomsbury Way. There was no prohibitory sign off Great Russell Street to this turn and the 'ahead only' blue sign was on a lampost after this traffic light junction where I turned off.

I did turn off Great Russell Street but at the traffic lights junction where I turned off there was NO sign prohibiting a turn onto the road I drove into and the blue 'ahead only' blue sign was posted on Great Russell Street AFTER the traffic light junction where I turned off.