Hi All, Just an update, I sent in my formal representation against the NtO and am still waiting to hear back. Will let you know as soon as I have some feedback from Westminster Council. Cheers

Jamberson, I have had another look at the TMO and IMO the sign is unlawful, even if authorised by the DfT, because there is no power within the order which permits the council to erect a sign which prohibits stopping. The DfT do not have lawful authority to create restrictions, their task is merely to authorise signs which give effect to restrictions under an order. What are your thoughts? Do you agree?

Its clear from my research and from looking at similiar cases that Tte fact that an Act is not mentioned in their TMO does not invalidate that Act nor absolve the Council from proper regard to it's provisions.

Jamberson thanks for your comments but what I can't seem to understand is why in July 2013 did Westminster Council apply for authorisation from the Dft to use suspension signs? Surely if they don't require it as per their TMO than they would not have applied for authorisation??

Sorry here is the link to the TMO: http://westminstertransportationservices.co.uk/tmo/ Then go to Zone G, section 30.

Hi Jamberson, I have looked at Section 30 of the TMO and can't seem to find any reference to authorisation? Do you think you could hvae a quick look and see if u can maybe find something about it? You can find it at the link below under Zone G. In the meantime I am going to include the below paragraph in my appeal letter once the NTO arrives: "The Council states in it’s letter rejecting representations that as its Traffic Orders do not mention the appropriate section of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and therefore it is under no obligation to obtain Department for Transport approval for its suspension signs. The fact that an Act is not mentioned in its Traffic Orders does not invalidate that Act nor absolve the Council from proper regard to it's provisions. Indeed by reference to the Secretary of States Statutory Guidelines (para 32) the Council must have proper regard to this Act. --” A parking contravention is often a breach of a provision of a TRO, which must have been made under the correct section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA). Flawed orders may be unenforceable, and can damage both the aims of CPE and the public perception of how it is managed” The Council’s letter demonstrates wilful neglect of this guidance. Furthermore the Council has fettered its discretion by asserting that it does not have an obligation to obtain DfT approval for its suspension sign when, in the absence of such a sign under TSRGD 2002, it has a clear obligation to seek such approval under s64 of the RTRA. The fact that the Council obtained DfT approval for such signage on 09/07/2013 demonstrates the dichotomy of its actions and statements. The DfT approval for suspension signs is both restrictive and exclusive. It restricts the use of any other sign and means that the approved sign must be used on an exclusive basis. Clearly that has not happened in this case and therefore the sign used does not comply with the Departmental approval. Any thoughts? Thanks

Thanks Jamberson, you have got me worried now ... Do you know how I can go about obtaining the TMO?

Sorry here is a clearer copy of the first page

Hi, Just a quick update, so I have received a copy of the council's letter rejecting my original appeal. They are claiming that they do not need to obtain DfT approval for their suspension signs as these signs are not prescribed within the TSRGD 2002 and therefore do not require approval.They go on further to say that as their Traffic Orders make no reference to Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, their suspension signs do not require DfT approval and they have no obligation to obtain it. Now to me the above sounds like complete nonsense and incorrect. Can anyone confirm if the above point made in their letter is correct or not? I have posted a copy of the letter below, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks

Guys, What about if I appealed the PCN on the basis that the sign photographed includes the words No Stopping (not present on the authorised sign), the to and from dates are incorrect (excluding 24th Feb is an error), the times are confusing and don't make nay sense (from 00:01 to 23:59) and that there is no phone number present on the sign (as required by approved version) to call incase one needs to clarify the sign or has any questions? Is this a strong appeal and whats the chances of winning?

Also this from the Campbell case: The Council in its TMO has specifically required itself to erect not a clear sign but a compliant one, and it is only the presence of a compliant sign that creates the contravention at all. In the absence of a compliant sign the vehicle in this case was not in contravention and the Appeal must be allowed. The sign as photographed includes the words "no stopping" that do not appear in the authorised version and omits the telephone number that does. Hence it is non-compliant. There's also the rather ludicrous wording that the suspension supposedly runs up to 22 February and excludes 24 February. Yes and it excludes 1 April as well! Also i refer to the sign quoting the hours 00.01 to 23.59. I don't think there is any confusion that the sign is intending to suspend the bay for 24 hours - unless you felt like chancing my luck with parking from 23.59 to 00.01 for all of two minutes! I reckon I got a strong case on the above points.

This how I see it. The sign doesn't look like the authorised one and it does not comply in several respects. I don't think an adjudicator can rule that there is substantial compliance and as stated in the Campbell case:- "In the absence of a compliant sign the vehicle in this case was not in contravention". Just not sure what to do now?

Hi All, Thanks for everyones feedback. From my research I have come up with two questions that need answering before I decide whether to take the PCN to the next stage in the appeal process. 1. Does a suspension sign containing errors / incorrect information make it non-compliant? 2. Does the actual sign used by the council differ from the sign approved by the Dft in 2013 (u can see the sign on the DfT approval form in the link contained in my second post) - i can see very small differences but not sure if the sign should be an exact copy of the approved one?? I found a recent case that is very similiar to mine where an Adjudicator ruled in favour of the OP due to the signs not being authorised. (link below) What would you guys do in my situation, what are the chances of be winning this case based on the above points? Many Thanks

Hi Jamberson, Just a quick update, I called Westminster Council asking them to explain why the suspension sign says: From 6th Jan to 22nd Feb (excluding 24th Feb). A person from the bay suspension team said that the sign was originally suspended from the 6th January to 22nd Feb and the suspension was then extended from 23th Feb till 31 March (exluding 24th Feb). He agreed, hesitantly, that the original suspension sign was not 100% correct and that there appears to be a mistake on the sign as the "excluding 24th Feb" should have been on the second extension sign not the original one. However, a woman in the PCN department insisted that the PCN is enforceable bec even though it contains an error, the PCN was issued within the period specified on the sign. I have noted her name and time of the call as all their lines are recorded, surely Westminster council have just shot themselves in the foot?

Perhaps the council got the dates on the sign wrong and what they actually meant to say is that the bay is suspended from 6th Jan to 24th Feb but excluding 22nd Feb?? Just a thought!