ECN. Do I have grounds to take it to court?

[trotters101]

I received an ECN for parking in a restricted bay but I feel that the sign is incredibly misleading. I requested the traffic order for the bay from the council and there is a discrepancy in regard to the restrictions for disabled drivers on the sign and in the order. Now, I am not disabled and am in no way claiming to be but can anyone tell me whether a discrepancy in one area leads to the entire order being invalid? Is it worth me taking it to magistrates court on the grounds of unclear and misleading signage and invalid traffic order or am I likely to get laughed out of court?

 

Any help gratefully received,

 

James

[Jamberson]

Hi.

 

ECNs are not my strong point but in principle I think a difference between the traffic order and the sign does not invalidate the traffic order - but it may invalidate the bay, which is to say the charge may be unenforceable.

 

It would help if you would post some more info - how is it different? What does the sign say, and what does the traffic order say?

[trotters101]

The sign says that disabled drivers are not exempt from the charges but the traffic order states that they do not have to pay. There was just this one sign for 4 bays in a row. Would it only invalidate the bay if I was a disabled driver?

 

Cheers

[green_and_mean]

The sign says that disabled drivers are not exempt from the charges but the traffic order states that they do not have to pay. There was just this one sign for 4 bays in a row. Would it only invalidate the bay if I was a disabled driver?

 

Cheers

 

Yes if the bit that applies to you is correct then the disabled bit applies to disabled drivers.

[Jamberson]

I'm not sure about that. My view is it would invalidate the whole bay - incorrect signage is entirely incorrect, not selectively, depending on who parks there.

[lamma]

Its the TRO that needs to be enforced and it holds sway. Signs sound like they are clearly wrong.