PCN I recieved, have I got a chance of appealing?

[green_and_mean]

Signs are only meant to face the road however they may have been wrong post photos if you can.

[green_and_mean]

A word of caution never listen to anything 'pay by phone ' operators say as regards parking restrictions all they do is process payments. They are probably in a town miles away and have never even seen the street. All they usually know is the charged hours and cost for the location you quote.

[green_and_mean]

a) Was the bay marked 'loading only?

b) Did the PCN contain any observation time?

 

I'm a bit confused is the loading bay the same bay but doesn't start until 7pm or are there different bays? The pay by phone sign is non compliant and as far as I can see would never be approved as it has NO TIME on it meaning its pay by phone 24/7. Actual photos of the bay are needed signs on their own are useless.

Edited December 4, 2009 by green_and_mean

[green_and_mean]

Pure conjecture on my part but I reckon this is a bay that the council wants to have as loading only overnight (7pm - 7am) but which is for parking at all other times with payment by phone from 8:30am to 6:30pm. But this is not what the signs say.

 

Seems odd then that the parking is not 7am to 7pm then?? I am not convinced this dual use is permitted the only way they could have done it was to install a SYL 7pm to 7am which would have allowed loading. If the bay is dual use both restrictions on use should be on the same sign.

[green_and_mean]

I will draft a few points for your appeal when I get back from work but there is a very strong case.

[green_and_mean]

Dear Sir

 

The sign you have alledged I have contravened is a 'loading only' sign TSRGD diag 660.4. Direction 25 in the TSRGD clearly states the type of bay I parked in must be marked with the legend 'loading only' if this sign is used to restrict the bay.

In addition the pay by phone signage on the same bay has no hours of operation on it, standard practice would infer that the bay then operates 24/7. I phoned the number only to be told the restriction ended at 18.30 before I parked.

When a bay has more than one restriction it is common practice to place all the restrictions on the same timeplate to avoid confusion in this case I read the pay by phone sign and failed to notice the 'loading only' sign placed further up the pole.

I therefore request this PCN is cancelled forthwith due to non compliant signage. If you fail to do so can you provide with the notice of rejection a copy of D of T approval for the use of the pay by phone sign without hours of operation in a bay that is not 'at any time' and approval for the use of the 'loading only' sign without a legend on the road.

[green_and_mean]

Thank you G&M. When I write to them should I attach the pictures I have taken of the bays and the signs?

 

Yes you may as well but they will probably just try to call your bluff at first but when they do reply and most likely reject the appeal come back and we can take it from there.

[green_and_mean]

Await Notice to owner and send same thing back if they take it to adjudication which is highly unlikely for Westminster I will come with you or represent if you cannot attend. You can use same letter for formal reps I will draft a better more detailed one for the adjudication. They may have authorisation for the bay but the bit about the CPZ is complete bull a CPZ only covers bays without signs and yellow lines.

[green_and_mean]

Ignore all the waffle, formal reps are made to the notice to owner await that then send the same appeal but expand it a bit.....

 

The sign you have alledged I have contravened is a 'loading only' sign TSRGD diag 660.4. Direction 24 in the TSRGD clearly states the type of bay I parked in must be marked with the legend 'loading only' if this sign is used to restrict the bay. There is no provision for the 660.4 signage to be used in a part time bay without the road marking 'LOADING ONLY'. If the intention was to allow loading but restrict parking a single yellow line should have been used 7pm-7am.

In addition the pay by phone signage on the same bay has no hours of operation on it, standard practice would infer that the bay then operates 24/7. I phoned the number only to be told the restriction ended at 18.30 before I parked. Your notice of rejection incorrectly states that the hours of the pay by phone are indicated by the CPZ, as you should well know CPZ signage only covers single yellow lines and bays that have a legend on the road but no time plate, the lack of time on a sign clearly indicates the restriction is at 'anytime'. The pay by phone signage is therefore non compliant and misleading due to its lack of the correct hours of operation.

In addition when a bay has more than one restriction it is common practice to place all the restrictions on the same timeplate to avoid confusion in this case I read the pay by phone sign and failed to notice the 'loading only' sign placed further up the pole.

I therefore request this PCN is cancelled forthwith due to non compliant signage. If you have also failed to provide with the notice of rejection a copy of D of T approval for the use of the pay by phone sign without hours of operation in a bay that is not 'at any time' and approval for the use of the 'loading only' sign without a legend on the road.

I will advise you that if this PCN is not cancelled I will be taking it to adjudication and will be seeking costs due to the Councils failure to accept that the signage is non compliant with the statutary requirements.

[green_and_mean]

How strange they are millions in the red and still find £100 for a nice new sign to replace the perfectly legal one that was there before?!

 

Yes just stick with what we have already, the TMO (traffic order) may have been wrong unless they changed it for the new signs but you should get a copy if it goes to appeal in the evidence pack. You can add the signage has been changed and was wrong to try and convince them but Westminster tend to treat parking like Poker and will usually call your bluff only fold at the last minute. Note that they have now put the times on the phone sign aswell, lol I sometimes wonder how they get their jobs??

 

You could be cheeky and send them the new photo with the background cropped and say this is what the sign should look like and don't mention its been changed and see what they say.

Edited January 22, 2010 by green_and_mean

[green_and_mean]

I've found the new TMO the 6.30-8.30 replaced the 7-7 from the 4th Dec but that doesn't really help them as they could have just changed the top sign if the format was correct.

 

 

Original TMO

 

 

Publication Date: Thursday, 10 September 2009

Notice Code: 1501

Road Traffic Acts

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER (PRESCRIBED ROUTES) (NO. 6) EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER 2009

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER (PARKING PLACES) (NO. 24) EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER 2009

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER (WAITING AND LOADING) (AMENDMENT NO. 3) EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER 2009

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER (LOADING BAY) (NO. 2) EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDER 2009

CIRCUS ROAD

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Westminster City Council on 7th September 2009 made the above Orders under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.

2. The general effect of the Orders will be, on an experimental basis to:

(a) introduce a loading bay on the north-west side of Circus Road (outside Nos. 6 to 18) which will operate between 7.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. throughout the week. Please note that the existing pay-by-phone parking bays at this location will be unaffected and will continue to operate between 8.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays;

(b) introduce additional “pay by phone” parking bays:

• outside No. 20 Circus Road (1 bay);

• outside No. 11 Circus Road (1 bay);

• outside No. 98 Cochrane Road (1 bay); and

• outside No. 1a St. Ann’s Terrace (2 bays);

© introduce an additional residents’ parking space outside No. 2 St. Ann’s Terrace;

(d) prohibit goods vehicles, the maximum gross weight of which exceeds 7.5 tonnes from entering or proceeding in St. Ann’s Terrace (north of the service road to the rear of Nos. 2 to 18 Circus Road), except for access;

(e) make minor amendments to existing waiting restrictions to accommodate the revised parking facilities referred to above.

3. The Orders will come into force on 21st September 2009.

4. Copies of the Orders and of other documents giving more detailed particulars of the Orders can be inspected between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, until such time as the Orders ceases to have effect, at One Stop Shop, City of Westminster, 62 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QP.

5. The Orders provides that, subject to the provisions of section 10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Council’s Director of Transportation for the time being, or some person authorised in that behalf by him, may, if it appears to him or that person essential:

Edited January 22, 2010 by green_and_mean

[green_and_mean]

No - there seems to be a signage policy of consolidation these days. so whilst some plates have been added to, it disadvantages a complainant if a relevant sign was 'missing' or got whacked off be a passing ladder. The consolidation means it is all or nothing, and if a plate is missing, it will be obvious.

 

Not the case its not 'policy' its the 'law' signs where covering the same bay or yellow line must form part of the same sign.

[green_and_mean]

Hmm. Are you suggesting that all regulations pertaining to the strech of road a bay exists, must have a compendium sign on a single plate (for example Loading Plate, Disable Parking, Residents permit and (timed) peak bus lane?

 

Waiting and loading restrictions including permits etc should, bus lanes however are not since they concern road usage not waiting.