Jump to content


DO I HAVE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL? PCN from TFL code 46 on Stoke Newington High St N16


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2662 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was parked in a red route loading /disabled bay outside 147-159 Stokenewington High St N16 (Hackney, London) at 14.34 and received a PCN from TFL code 46: stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway). I didn’t realise they had changed the parking restriction timings from 10am – 4pm to 7am to 1pm.

 

There is a traffic order with Hackney council created in April 2013 about changing the signs but upon asking local shop owners, the signs were changed in March 2014. I have parked here when taking my mum to the bank for the past 10 yrs as my mum is a disabled blue badge holder. We were in India when the signs were changed in March 2014. We returned in April 2014. So had no way of knowing that the parking restriction times had changed. And no, I didn’t check the signs before I parked. I didn't know they were going to change. Also the red route bay parking time restrictions have not been changed on the opposite side of the road. They remain as 10am-4pm.

 

In my informal representation to TFL, which I made online via their website I simply said I was parked legally with badge displayed and within the time frame (Thinking you could park there until 4pm. Didn’t realise the parking restriction timings had changed and hence this is why i got the ticket ). And that CCTV images were taken from back so it could not see badge displayed in windscreen.

 

TFL rejected my representation.

 

However upon further investigation the new signage does not face the oncoming traffic but is parallel to the road. It is impossible to read the sign as you approach the red route box. see pics

Google images show the earlier signs with old parking time restriction (10am – 4pm) faced the oncoming traffic.

Can I appeal on the basis that the sign does not face the correct way, even though this was not my initial representation. Further new sign further down the road also faces the oncoming traffic?

 

Any help, thoughts and suggestions would be most appreciated.

Thank you in advance

 

Saavy

Edited by savvy100
ADDED MORE PHOTOS
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all red route signs are supposed to face the oncoming traffic. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think that's the case, or you'd have to park and get out the car to find out whether you're allowed to stop - which is absurd.

 

I can't read the scans as they're too small, but the notice of rejection should tell you what you can do next (adjudication?). You can introduce different grounds for appeal at any stage, so there's no reason why you can't bring this up at the next stage of the process.

 

Maybe try reading around a bit to be certain about the sign direction. If it is wrong, you'd have a good case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jamberson,

 

Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post.

 

Upon further investigation i have come across the following from the DFT Traffic Signs manual. Regulatory sign 2008

 

 

Chapter 10

10.5 All upright signs "should" face oncoming traffic as drivers need to be able to read them without stopping, otherwise they might be committing an offence. Signs need to be sufficiently frequent for drivers to be clear what restriction applies.

 

 

At the start of the manual in chapter 1 definitions of the word ''should'' have been given as follows.

1.5 In this chapter the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions that must be complied with. The word “shall” indicates an essential (or mandatory) requirement of compliance with this chapter, and “should” indicates a course of action that is strongly recommended and represents good practice. The word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option which requires consideration depending on the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

......and i found this on penaltychargenotice.co.uk. Adjudicators Desicions for Red Routes.

 

SIGNS FACING THE WRONG WAY.

 

Case no 2100224850 - Transport for London

 

In this case the red route sign was parallel to the road rather than facing the oncoming traffic as required under chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual para 10.5. The motorist said that he didn't initially notice the double red lines and when he did he returned to his car and drove off. Had the sign been facing the oncoming cars then he may well not have stopped in the first place. The appeal was allowed.

 

However in my case i have already conceded that i had parked in the bay but not knowing that the the times had changed

so the contravention did actually occur. Can i now appeal on the basis that the signs do not face on coming traffic have a good chance at my appeal being upheld, given that the adjudicator will look at my

informal representation, where i admitted to parking in the red route bay not knowing that timings had changed???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work.

 

If it were me, I think I would go ahead with the appeal. It might be the case that "should" is not mandatory, but since you can show that the previous sign was traffic-facing, they can hardly say it's not practical to position the new one that way. They presumably have no clear reason for placing it as they have, except that they were negligent in following best practice. You can state quite reasonably that if the sign was facing the traffic, you would have seen the times on it, but because it was not, the different times were not brought to your attention in any reasonable way. As said above, you can't be expected to examine the sign after you've pulled over.

 

It's not a dead-cert win, but I think it's good enough to go with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...