Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Lining up my ducks and preparing my WS in advance. 1st draft below. Feedback appreciated. In the County Court at ************ Claim Number:***************** BETWEEN: Claimant: ********************** -and- Defendant: *********************** WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******************   I, *********, being the Defendant in this case, make this Witness Statement in support of my defence which is due to be heard on DATE at ************ County Court. I contest that the Claimant's claim is vague and unspecific. On DATE I made a written request to the Claimant requesting that the Claimant provides copies of all documents (true copy of the executed agreement and a copy of current terms and conditions encapsulating any variation) mentioned in the Statement of Case (Exhibit A). On DATE I made a written request to the Claimant Solicitors requesting that the Claimant provides copies of all documents (Credit Agreement, a copy of the Contractual payments under the terms of the agreement and the Default Notice) mentioned in the Statement of Case (Exhibit B). On DATE the Claimant’s Solicitors replied (Exhibit C) to my written request without the requested documents. On DATE the Claimant replied (Exhibit D) to my written request without the requested documents. The Claimants claim is based upon Defendants alleged breach of contract and therefore, the contract is entirely central to the Claimant’s case. CPR Rule 31.15 requires that documents are provided within 7 days from receipt of a written request. The Claimant has failed to provide any of the documents mentioned in its claim form. On DATE I contacted the Claimant and repeated my request for copies of documents as mentioned in the Statement of Case (Exhibit E). The Claimant has mentioned the Credit Agreement, the Default Notice and the Assignment in its Statement of Case and yet it has provided none of these documents despite my entitlement to inspect these documents or if they can provide originals for Court inspection. The claimant has provided a 'reconstituted' set of statements which are not original documents The Claimants pleaded case is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with ***************** under account reference ************, I am uncertain as to which account this refers to. It is accepted that I have had ****** Loans in the past, however, the account number given does not relate to any information I have, therefore, it is essential that I have sight of the agreement relied upon by the Claimant to be able to accurately identify to what the claim refers. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I therefore ask that the Court orders the Claimant to provide copies of the documents and if the Claimant is unable to comply the proceedings are struck. Statement of Truth I ************, the Defendant believe the matters set out in this Witness Statement are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. Signed: ________________________________ Dated: ________________________________
    • Brilliant, that's reassuring.  Off to the Hermes forum now.
    • No, I think UK will get same deal as EU.  Main reasons for this are two sectors,  Defence and Financial Services.  US have huge levels of money invested in the UK, so they have a self interest in offering a trade deal as good as the EU.
    • @labrat I'll bet it isn't the subframe itself that's broken. It'll be the subframe mounting bolt(s) that have sheared off inside it. Because the bolt is seized inside the subframe, it effectively renders the subframe scrap. I suspect the garage are simply talking in terms the average customer is more likely to understand than going into the detail of it. The Golf, Jetta and Beetle, which are all mechanically identical, are notorious for it.    A smaller independent garage may have tried to get the bolts out, but you very quickly reach the point where time/effort/cost is simply not worth it and replacement of the whole subframe is the better choice.   Of course the OP could approach a salvage yard, either local or online, and ask about the cost of a good used item, which would be substantially less expensive than what I assume is the price VW are charging for a replacement.
    • Applied for and awarded by BY in Sept 2020 still not received it yet Comments appreciated
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2907 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello.

 

Parked in a bay on West Street in Sheffield this morning (Saturday) and received a Penalty Charge Notice (P CN).

 

There is a single yellow line in the bay, no other markings.

 

In essence my query is how do I stand parking there where there appears to have been a plate detailing the parking restrictions which apply to parking there - but the plate is missing.

 

In this picture (from GSV), you can see the end of the bay and a grey pole which has no parking plate to detail any restrictions. As an aside, is the yellow line correctly painted - should it have an "end" line at 90-degrees to the main yellow line?

 

WestStreetBay.jpg

 

At the far end of West Street is a "Controlled Zone" plate with a restriction of Mon - Sat 8.00am - 6.30pm

 

WestStreetCPZ-1-1.jpg

 

and detail of the plate:

 

WestStreetCPZ-1.jpg

 

Is this a valid CPZ as there are other road markings other than to identify parking spaces within the CPZ - see below:

 

WestStreetCPZ-2.jpg

 

I thought that the only markings allowed within a CPZ were to indicate parking spaces or yellow lines. Any other markings rendered the whole of the CPZ invalid. Is this correct (and if so, can you give me a link to the relevant regulation?)

 

If there is a plate adjacent to a bay, this sets out specific regulations/restrictions relating to that bay within a CPZ and over-rides the general restrictions of the Controlled Zone plate?

 

An additional piece of information. Sheffield's own website (link here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/transport/parking/City-Centre-Map---Inner-and-Outer-Zones/City%20Centre%20Map%20-%20Inner%20and%20Outer%20Zones.pdf) has a map showing an 'Outer Zone' and an Inner Zone'. Surely with two ones differentiated in this way, they both need 'Controlled Zone' plates as it is reasonable to presume that because they are designated 'Outer' and 'Inner' zones, that they must be different in some way with different restrictions - else why not just a single zone?

 

I'd like a link, if anyone has one, to the Department for Transport's site which sets out the regulations for signage.

 

I have a picture taken on my return to the car showing the single yellow line, car registration plate, PCN on the windscreen and the grey pole without plate. Emailed this from my iPhone so that there is an irrefutible time-stamp for the picture (which will back up any Exif data for the picture).

 

Thanks for any help offered,

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is a plate adjacent to a bay, this sets out specific regulations/restrictions relating to that bay within a CPZ and over-rides the general restrictions of the Controlled Zone plate?

 

That's correct, ie additional timeplates are only required where the restrictions for that bay are different from the restricted times on the CPZ entry signs.

 

Since there is no timeplate where you parked, the times are the same as the entry signs ie Mon-Sat 8am-8.30pm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. If the bay was inside the CPZ then a single yellow is subject to the hours which govern the CPZ (the so-called underlying restriction). Just the presence of a pole doesn't get you off the PCN.

 

The yellow line terminations are technically faulty but it is widely seen as so trivial a matter that cases normally are not upheld on that argument alone - you can see the yellow line, and that's what matters.

 

The outer zone/inner zone matter is a possible area to look into. What are the differences? If the inner zone restriction is somehow different, then the signage should reflect that - maybe if you start by calling the council and asking what the difference is - then you can look at whether the signs comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael & Jamberson

 

First, thank you both for your speedy replies.

 

@Michael - what is the situation where a single yellow line inside a CPZ has a different restriction, but the plate detailing that restriction is missing?

 

Secondly, what about my question regarding other road markings within a CPZ. Aside from bay markings and yellow lines, I thought that CPZs had to have no other road markings or the whole CPZ would be invalid.

 

@Jamberson

 

Regarding your question, no, there are no additional signs for the Inner Zone - or as near as I can make out.

 

I have spent the afternoon using GSV to look at if the signage matches the map from Sheffield City Council's on website saying where the Controlled Parking Zone starts - and there are discrepancies. For example, the map shows that the Outer Zone starts just off the roundabout at Brook Hill on Upper Hanover Way - so somewhere along this stretch of pavement - but the Controlled Zone signs do not appear on that stretch of road. Instead, the signs are some 35 yards after you turn left into Leavygreave Road.

 

HanoverWay-PortobelloStreet.jpg

 

Upper Hanover Way (Brook Hill Roundabout behind), Leavygreave Road on LHS.

 

PortobelloSt-GellSt.jpg

 

CPZ signs on Leavygreave Road - some 35 yards inside the CPZ.

 

However, whilst I was trawling GSV this afternoon in order to gather some evidence, I discovered (quite by accident) that despite having a single yellow line and being inside a CPZ (where no plate should be necessary), that the disputed bay has different restrictions to those of the main CPZ - so an explanatory plate detailing the restrictions is therefore required.

 

A few yards from the end of the bay where I was caught this morning, I discovered that there IS a restriction plate - but it is hidden between two traffic lights - as the following two pictures show.

 

WestStreetCLC5a.jpg

 

and close-up

 

WestStreetCLC6.jpg

 

Surely this is good grounds for appeal as the restriction sign cannot easily be seen - indeed I have been parking there after 6:30pm for the past 2 years (my son's flat is virtually opposite this bay across the junction) without even realising that there was a plate there! I was using the bay because I had realised that there wasn't a plate adjacent to the bay and so any parking restrictions would not apply,and believe me, I gave the area a good hard look beforehand as I didn't fancy a par king fine. That means that the plate has been missing for at least the last two years!

 

Anyway, do you think that this partially hidden sign gives me good grounds for appeal - especially since the bay doesn't have the same restrictions as the Inner CPZ and the plate adjacent to the bay (ie the plate that would be in plain view) which should detail those restrictions is missing?

 

Here's my car showing the single yellow line, the P CN and the pole with the missing restriction plate.

 

WestStreetPCN2a.jpg

 

The plate is invisible when you step out of the car - indeed you could walk to the end of the road to where the plate is and still not see it - unless you either stepped into the road or were to cross over the road and look back. Even then, I reckon that you'd still have to be jolly lucky to see it - nestled as it is between the two sets of lights.

 

I'll revisit the site again to take a photo to prove this point to the City Council should I need to, and even a video showing what you have to do in order to see that playe that is displayed.

 

What do you think - do I have a good case?

 

Cheers

 

Art

Edited by Arthur Dent
Link to post
Share on other sites
what about my question regarding other road markings within a CPZ. Aside from bay markings and yellow lines, I thought that CPZs had to have no other road markings or the whole CPZ would be invalid.
Not that I'm aware of. What other road markings are you talking about?

 

I have spent the afternoon using GSV to look at if the signage matches the map from Sheffield City Council's on website saying where the Controlled Parking Zone starts - and there are discrepancies. For example, the map shows that the Outer Zone starts just off the roundabout at Brook Hill on Upper Hanover Way - so somewhere along this stretch of pavement - but the Controlled Zone signs do not appear on that stretch of road. Instead, the signs are some 35 yards after you turn left into Leavygreave Road.

There's a more accurate CPZ map here:

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/maps/cyclecarpark/streetparking.html

which shows the Short Stay Outer Zone starts in Leavygrave Road

 

 

I discovered (quite by accident) that despite having a single yellow line and being inside a CPZ (where no plate should be necessary), that the disputed bay has different restrictions to those of the main CPZ - so an explanatory plate detailing the restrictions is therefore required.
What do you think the restrictions should be? What evidence?

 

A few yards from the end of the bay where I was caught this morning, I discovered that there IS a restriction plate - but it is hidden between two traffic lights
That applies to the DYL, so is irrelevant to the bay where you parked Edited by Michael Browne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Thanks for the link and taking the time to reply. What does DYL mean - I'm guessing double-yellow line?

 

If so, you mean that the plate between the two traffic lights refers to the double-yellow lines alongside - as shown in this picture? That makes sense (although where they've placed the sign doesn't).

 

WestStreetCLC3.jpg

 

I'll ring the council tomorrow and ask about what restrictions are in that bay and if they differ from the main CPZ.

 

I'm still thinking that the plate is missing and details a different restriction to the main CPZ. Doesn't the CPZ just limit parking between 08:00 and 18:30 Monday-Friday or would it detail 'No Waiting' / 'No Loading' too? Surely these vary from site to site (read bay to bay) and therefore rely on a plate detailing the restriction in full. As the yellow line isn't a marking out a parking bay but should have an attached restriction plate, won't the P CN be invalid?

 

Need to check on that bay first to be sure. Thanks for your help.

 

Cheers

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's supposed to be a loading bay

 

http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/files/FD56.pdf

 

 

Page 219:

Schedule 11.01 Loading?unloading bay

 

22. West Street

the south-east side:-

(i) between a point 8 metres north east of the eastern kerb line of Rockingham Street and a point 43 metres north east of that kerb line which is bounded by the south eastern kerb line which is bounded by the south eastern building line and the south eastern kerb line of West Street.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, many, many thanks Michael.

 

I'm new to all this, only ever had a parking ticket twice before in 37 years of driving - once for parking the wrong way on the street at night (headlights facing on-coming traffic) and once for parking on a yellow line which I hadn't seen. Both my fault, so I didn't contest them and simply paid up. This one I'm looking into in great detail because I feel that the council have been very tardy in not replacing the restriction sign for this bay.

 

So, based on what you found, the P CN is invalid? If it is a loading bay and there is no plate, the CPZ rules don't just take over do they? If there's no plate, and there should be, then there's no contravention because the parking restriction isn't legal.

 

Have I got that right?

 

Cheers

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a loading bay and there is no plate, the CPZ rules don't just take over do they?

 

That's the likely stance that the council will take, ie where there is a SYL in a CPZ with no timeplate, the restrictions are the same as the times on the entry signs.

 

What's the contravention on the PCN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be useful if you can establish that the bay is definitely a loading bay.

 

Sheffield's policy for the enforcement of parking and bus lane restrictions: Page 34: Civil Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement Policy (DOC, 1244 KB) :

 

(iii) Missing signs

If a sign is claimed to be missing, the location should be inspected immediately and if confirmed, arrangements made for its replacement. Where a sign is missing the PCN should be cancelled. (except where the restriction is double yellow lines, when a sign is no longer required).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Once again, a quick reply with useful questions & info - many thanks :thumb:

 

The P CN only says "West Street" - no specific location is given. Here's what it actually looks like:

 

PCN9313modified.jpg

 

Thanks for that link on Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement. You a an absolute mine of information :hail:

 

I note that it doesn't have the code number (01) on the ticket - is ithat important?

 

Also, since this is a GV Loading Bay is the alleged contravention correct? Shouldn't the contravention code have been 02 "Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force." or even 23 "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle." ??

 

Cheers,

 

Art

Edited by Arthur Dent
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, or even 25 Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading.

 

I note that it doesn't have the code number (01) on the ticket - is ihat important?

No it's not a statutory requirement

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the tail end of your appeal I suggest you include the text below.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Looking at the document you discovered (post #11), page 25 makes for interesting reading.

 

It says, quote:

 

Specific Policy – Loading / Unloading

 

Loading / Unloading is generally permitted when there are waiting restrictions is place, except when there is also a loading restriction. However, this only applies whilst carrying out the legitimate activity of loading and / or unloading, provided:-

 

Activity involving the vehicle is observed by the CEO whilst the vehicle is parked. The recommended observation period will normally be for at least five minutes and a PCN will only be issued if no activity is seen during this period.

 

As noted on the P CN my vehicle was observed for 5 minutes from 12:06 to 12:11. This is the recommended minimum observation time for loading/unloading where there are restrictions in place.

 

This suggests that the councils own agent (the CEO) deemed the bay to be a loading bay, else why did he observe for 5 minutes to see if loading/unloading was being carried out?

 

As such, the offence code should surely be 02 "Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force." or possibly 23 "Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle." ?

 

Also on page 29 of the same document, quote:

 

Specific Policy - Observation Period

 

An observation period will be allowed where there is a loading exemption for the specific restriction under consideration.

 

Again, this leads me to believe that the P CN is not valid for several reasons, summarised below:

 

1) the bay is a goods vehicle loading bay which should have a plate detailing the exact restriction in force - without a plate, the restriction doesn't apply so any P CN would be invaild

 

2) the P CN is too vague stating merely "West Street" which, as you say, is quite long (it isn't a mile, more like 0.4 mile - it starts at Fitzwilliam Street / Devonshire Street and goes towards the city centre stopping at Leopold Street). There are many bays along the road, I'll have to count them.

 

3) the code number is missing from the P CN (is this important?)

 

4) the contravention is described as "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours" whereas the CEO (acting as agent for the council) thinks that the bay is a loading/unloading bay (which it is according to the City Centre Controlled Parking Zone document of 21-Oct-2008) and so should have used a different violation code - either 02 or 23 depending on your point of view.

 

5) the single yellow line is incorrectly marked - there is no termination bar at either end - required where the restriction changes (as it clearly does here from double-yellow line to single for the bay and back to double again) - trivial?

 

I'm not sure that I like the way that the councils and tribunals seem to be able to cherry-pick which parts of the legislation they need to adhere to.

 

I'd welcome your thoughts/input.

 

Kind regards,

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you need to do is phone the council and ask for the Traffic Order covering that location. They should supply you with a copy free of charge.

 

This is a legal document describing exactly what the restrictions are for that area, and the bit you are interested in is the bit which governs the exact place you were parked. You will find it in the Traffic Order and it will say something like, "High Street, outside number 11, for 15 metres heading north" - and you need to pin-point the part for that exact bay, according to the location described - and then it will describe the restriction there, eg: "loading only".

 

The document defines the restriction, the signs do not. To be valid, the bay must have a sign which matches the information given in the Traffic Order. If the Traffic Order says that is a loading place, it must have a sign saying that - it isn't the case that a missing sign changes it to something else. It is still legally a loading bay, and an unsigned loading bay is unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. In addition to getting the Traffic Order, it would be sensible to ask for the photos too. It is likley that the CEO will have photographed any signage next to the bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jamberson & Dogs for your thoughts.

 

Fair point. In addition to getting the Traffic Order, it would be sensible to ask for the photos too. It is likley that the CEO will have photographed any signage next to the bay.

 

He'll have a job because there aren't any (save for the one below in this post) :lol: I will ask the council for the TRO and photographic evidence of my transgression though. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

We photographed the site (including the missing plate) when we got back to the car and then emailed it so that there would be a date/timestamp (so the council couldn't later claim that the Exif data on the photo wasn't genuine) - see the bottom photo in post #4 of this thread showing my car, the bay, single yellow line and missing restriction plate.

 

I have photographed the street this aftenoon. I wasn't relying on GSV, just using it to do an initial "survey" as it were. The pictures from GSV were mainly for the good folks on this forum so that you'd know what I was talking about.

 

BTW, have you ever seen a sign placed in such a stupid place as this "No Loading" sign?

 

IMG_0344.jpg

 

Taken this afternoon when I made a thorough survey of the area (just in case I'd missed something) so I'm not just relying on GSV.

 

Art

Edited by Arthur Dent
Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Been in touch with the city council this morning requesting the relevant TRO and photographic evidence and also viewed the photographic evidence on-line. There are four photos in total showing the front and rear of the car and also the restriction sign on the opposite side of the street (which is also adjacent to a bay) - however this bay does not have the same restrictions applicable to it as my bay (as found by Michael in his Traffic Order post above).

 

You can clearly see the white line marking through the window of my car in the CEO's photograph showing the sign on the opposite side of the road.

 

Cunninglly the front and rear shots of my car in the bay don't show the grey pole without its restriction plate!

 

EvidencefromCEO-Photo2a.jpg

 

The sign across the road clearly says "No Stopping except local buses"

 

Here's a GSV pictre of the sign across the street - I'll take my own photographic evidence this afternoon.

 

NoStoppingexceptLocalbuses.jpg

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign on the opposite side of the street is not relevant to that bay in my opinion. You have the Google image of no sign, and one today with no sign - ipso facto, there was no sign when you parked.

 

Just check the TRO has some restriction there other than the standard underlying restriction and I think you have a winning hand.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Sheffield City Council wouldn't take a telephone request to supply the Traffic Regulation Order, I had to email the request in.

 

Auto-reply email says "If your email is not a challenge against a Penalty Charge Notice, we will respond to you shortly.

 

If you are challenging a Penalty Charge Notice your email will be logged to the case. The case will be placed on hold pending a full written response."

 

I'm going to ring now and ask what the date of the current TRO is for the street where I parked. If it is the one that I already have - October 2008 - then I can mount my challenge.

 

I'll keep you posted. Any further help/suggestions are most welcome.

 

Many thanks to all that have offered help already.

 

Art

 

Update 2:

 

Phoned Parking and spoke to the Traffic Regulation Office

 

A very helpful chap said that the TRO found by Michael (dated 21st Oct 2008) is the current one but that there may be some amendments. He asked for the specific details and then shortly afterwards emailed me the relevant sections of the TRO (which I already have in full - all 220 pages of it) and said that none of the amendments affected that section of West Street.

 

He also said that when requesting the TRO that any amendments might possibly be withheld simply because my request didn't say "Can you supply me with a copy of the current TRO that is in force for that pticular road/parking bay (whatever) and any subsequent amendments".

 

Might be worth passing this on to anyone else trying to fight an invalid P CN.

 

Regards,

 

Art

Edited by Arthur Dent
Additional information
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. It's utterly immaterial what someone decides they want to consider it to be, and in fact if this conflicts with the Traffic Order, it is edging towards impropriety for them to say that.

 

All that matters is what is written down in the Traffic Order. Do you have a copy, or a copy on its way to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

BaysonWestStreet.jpg

 

Cheers,

 

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...