Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No street signage / bay markings but PCN still issued by council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
o.willow
Good evening,

I have contested a PCN with Vale of Glamorgan council but with no success so far and need someone's help please.

Links to original PCN here:

https://ibb.co/xSvwFH8
https://ibb.co/kGfjy4Z
https://ibb.co/1sYP5nP

I was visiting the beach at Ogmore-by-Sea on 26/03/2022 and as the beach car park was closed, I had found parking at the nearest accessible road, on Seaview Drive and walked down.

Link to google map location here: https://goo.gl/maps/cb4qKNT3k8pxk7oUA

On returning, I found my vehicle was issued a PCN.

However, there were no street markings, no parking bay markings, no parking prohibition signs, no street signs and no resident parking posts anywhere in close proximity to where I had parked my vehicle.

When taking pictures of my vehicle and the street where it was parked, a passer-by informed me that there were resident parking zone signs when entering Seaview drive off of Main road - which I had must have missed because I did not see these signs.

Links to the pictures of where the car was parked are here:

https://ibb.co/Hr8ZPkN

https://ibb.co/QPNwvqk

https://ibb.co/NyRD7V2

https://ibb.co/CMS46c0

https://ibb.co/3NprFtN

I then sent the issuing council a letter (attached) on 05/04/2022 asking for the PCN to be cancelled due to a lack of sufficient signage.

- The council replied on 07/05/2022 rejecting the challenge stating that I was parked in a residents parking zone and that it was the responsibility of the driver to ensure they were parked correctly (full letter attached).

I then countered the rejection (attached) by describing what exactly happened on that day and how I had missed the signs entering Sea View drive. After researching the law, I also stated that any parking restrictions must be fully visible to the driver - referring to the government’s advice on the private parking code of practice, point 3.1.3, which states:

3.1.3 Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:
a) be placed throughout the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;

- This latest letter was again rejected by the council on the grounds that there was no further evidence to support the cancellation of the PCN and that it was "the driver's responsibility to ensure they are parked so as not to contravene the parking restrictions in place" and that "Please be advised, there is no requirement for the restriction to be marked on the road. If no valid permit can be displayed, then the onus is fully placed on the driver to source an alternative parking place."

They have now issued me, the registered keeper, a NtO that I want to appeal against.

I had missed the only parking restriction signs entering Sea View Drive and as I wasn't aware of any restrictions, I had no reasonable reason to think that I was prohibited from parking on Sea View Dv - link to where I had parked here: https://goo.gl/maps/M13FfTfa2gKbWVmj9

Links to NtO (issued 30/05/22) here:

https://ibb.co/mCHmj38
https://ibb.co/GWLThNP
https://ibb.co/C06zP02
https://ibb.co/d7dNCBR

I had absolutely no idea of any parking restrictions where I had parked and feel the council could have put up parking restriction signs on the actual pavements and not just on an entrance into a road off of a very busy main road.

Please advise on the best course of action I can take, I am very adamant on not paying anything for this.

Thanks all!

O.Willow


stamfordman
Have you got pictures of the zone entry signs either yours or the council's?

These resident permit parking areas are becoming common and they only need entry signs and usually say permit parking only beyond this point or such like. But the signs need to be clear.

Also, a zone like this would benefit from repeaters warning of the restriction - are there any other small signs?

Order announcement:

https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Document...-and-Ogmore.pdf

Signs should be here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4657231,-3....3312!8i6656
o.willow
I haven't got pictures of it.

I did not see the signs as I was entering the road whilst waiting for a gap in traffic. My focus was on driving and not on any parking restrictions.

When I am looking to park, I look for parking restrictions. There weren't any signs where I was parking so I had no knowledge that I couldn't park where I did.

Is it reasonable to expect a driver to be aware of a resident's parking zone order announcement?

stamfordman
QUOTE (o.willow @ Mon, 6 Jun 2022 - 20:37) *
I haven't got pictures of it.

I did not see the signs as I was entering the road whilst waiting for a gap in traffic. My focus was on driving and not on any parking restrictions.

When I am looking to park, I look for parking restrictions. There weren't any signs where I was parking so I had no knowledge that I couldn't park where I did.

Is it reasonable to expect a driver to be aware of a resident's parking zone order announcement?


Post the council's pics.

No of course you aren't supposed to know about the order although it was covered in the local press. What you are supposed to see are signs. If the council can't provide evidence of signage then they won't succeed at the tribunal but if you want to go on you'll have to find something to say to them with formal reps to the NTO and you've already had two gos.

As this is a new scheme I would also expect advance warnings signs. Some repeater signs in the zone also.

Incandescent
Last GSV photos are 2016, so we really need to see the current view, but I suspect there will be signs at the entrance at the junction of Seaview Drive and the B4524, (called Main Road), this being the only way in to the development. Councils are putting in more and more of these resident parking schemes, and here you can see why, as the residents of this development clearly got fed up with holiday makers and day trippers clogging up their street, so lobbied the council to do something. The only thing one could argue about, if the signs are present, is - are there any repeater signs. Only you can tell us about the signs presence or absence, so you'll need to do some legwork with a camera, but I suspect you would not have passed "No Entry" signs would you ?

If you want to fight them, then OK, but you'll probably end up at the adjudicators. This means you'll lose the discount option. You might be adamant about not paying the PCN, but if an adjudicator decides against you, it is pay-up time or the bailiffs will be round to get the money, and their fees ain't cheap
hcandersen

When taking pictures of my vehicle and the street where it was parked, a passer-by informed me that there were resident parking zone signs when entering Seaview drive off of Main road - which I had must have missed because I did not see these signs.

So you do not dispute their presence, you simply missed them?

Did you actually go and look for them?

Issues have 2 components as regards the contravention: facts(both objective and findings made by adjudicators) and the law.

You ask for help but the essential facts are missing i.e. was there a sufficient number of properly placed substantially compliant traffic signs conveying a lawful restriction whose contravention is alleged at the vehicle entrance used by you to enter the zone - you suggest this is an entrance to Seaview Drive - and where was your car in relation to these?

There seems little point looking for applicable law until these facts are in play.

Nosy Parker
The law on this is supposed to be the same in London and elsewhere in England & Wales but the London adjudicators (ETA) and national adjudicators (TPT) sometimes take different approaches - a problem that might be alleviated now that the ETA Chief Adjudicator is moving over to take the role of TPT Chief Adjudicator.

Anyway, the weight of ETA decisions on this question is that for a permit zone where there are no yellow lines etc to remind motorists of the restriction, there must be repeater signs to warn motorists of the need to display a permit and that it isn’t enough for the Council just to put signs at the entry points to the zone. I can provide references to some ETA decisions saying this (and also one rogue decision going the other way). I don’t know whether TPT adjudicators have dealt with the point, maybe others can weigh in with that information.
hcandersen
Each case is decided on its individual merits.

If the OP was parked close to the entrance sign then that's not the same as parking X streets away(and we've seen PPAs covering several streets) hence why I asked them where they were relative to the signs.

But the issue of absence of repeater signs should be put to the authority but not as in 'they weren't there so you're prevented from enforcing it'(there is no legal precedent for this) but rather - when I read the PCN I looked around for any signs which warned motorists, but other than for those at the junction of Main and Seaview to which I've referred earlier, I didn't see any. Why have the council chosen to not place additional signs to reinforce the restriction?
cp8759
We've seen this location before. The legal requirement is for the signage to be adequate, so the representations should focus on that. Ultimately to succeed the council would need photos of the signage.

There is also the 0845 issue as explained in Andrew Young v London Borough of Croydon (2190531198, 27 January 2020) http://bit.ly/2RTSxEP and we have this evidence https://bit.ly/3wXafMK covering the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
Nosy Parker
It often helps at Tribunal appeals to have examples of decisions in similar cases because, even though each case must be decided on its individual merits and previous Tribunal decisions are not binding, the decisions of learned adjudicators on similar facts can be persuasive. I don't know of any relevant TPT cases because my work in this area has been confined to London; but here are a couple of helpful ETA decisions:

Case Reference: 2160176326[u]
[/u] "The Appellant said that there were no signs close to where the vehicle was parked. The Authority submitted that there is no need for signs in the zone. I disagree. Unlike Controlled Parking Zones which have road markings, a permit zone has no road markings. There should be a sufficient and appropriate number of repeater signs. (Adjudicator Mr Anthony Chan)

Case Reference 214017760A
“I would accept that there may well be situations where repeater signage would not be necessary for clarity - for example in the case of a very short length of road, or perhaps where a vehicle is parked very close to the entry sign itself. However in cases where, as the photographs in many of the present cases show, there is simply an extended length of blank carriageway I take some persuading that the entry sign of itself was enough to sign the requirement sufficiently clearly.” (Adjudicator Mr Edward Houghton)
hcandersen

The Appellant said that there were no signs close to where the vehicle was parked. The Authority submitted that there is no need for signs in the zone. I disagree. Unlike Controlled Parking Zones which have road markings, a permit zone has no road markings. There should be a sufficient and appropriate number of repeater signs. (Adjudicator Mr Anthony Chan)


Good old Mr Chan, my thinking exactly i.e. were there signs 'close to where the vehicle parked' (these could be the PPA signs themselves, of course) and what was the council's response when this was put to them.

So OP, do not just wait for a NTO, there's leg-work to be done.

If you cannot revisit, then post this here because another poster might be able to oblige.

The matter depends upon your facts and no-one else's. If yours fit, then fine. But you must establish that fit, so pl deal with the issue of your car and its proximity to the PPA entry signs, and their location and orientation for that matter.
cp8759
QUOTE (Nosy Parker @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 15:56) *
If I've understood it, o.willow is beyond the stage where representations can be made to the Council and the window for paying the discounted rate of £35 has now closed. If that's right, the sensible course is to wait for the Notice to Owner and appeal to the TPT.

The next action upon receipt of the Notice to Owner is to make representations to the council. The Notice to Owner has been received (it's in the opening post) and we now need to draft representations.
o.willow
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 6 Jun 2022 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (o.willow @ Mon, 6 Jun 2022 - 20:37) *
I haven't got pictures of it.

I did not see the signs as I was entering the road whilst waiting for a gap in traffic. My focus was on driving and not on any parking restrictions.

When I am looking to park, I look for parking restrictions. There weren't any signs where I was parking so I had no knowledge that I couldn't park where I did.

Is it reasonable to expect a driver to be aware of a resident's parking zone order announcement?


Post the council's pics.

No of course you aren't supposed to know about the order although it was covered in the local press. What you are supposed to see are signs. If the council can't provide evidence of signage then they won't succeed at the tribunal but if you want to go on you'll have to find something to say to them with formal reps to the NTO and you've already had two gos.

As this is a new scheme I would also expect advance warnings signs. Some repeater signs in the zone also.



Evening -

There are no council pics of the PCN on Vale of Glamorgan's website.

There is only this landing page:

https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/livin...e%20Notice.aspx

And then this for online representations:

https://www.wppp.org.uk/ChallengePcn

Unless I'm not seeing something - there is no way to retrieve the PCN online.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 09:19) *
When taking pictures of my vehicle and the street where it was parked, a passer-by informed me that there were resident parking zone signs when entering Seaview drive off of Main road - which I had must have missed because I did not see these signs.

So you do not dispute their presence, you simply missed them?

Did you actually go and look for them?

Issues have 2 components as regards the contravention: facts(both objective and findings made by adjudicators) and the law.

You ask for help but the essential facts are missing i.e. was there a sufficient number of properly placed substantially compliant traffic signs conveying a lawful restriction whose contravention is alleged at the vehicle entrance used by you to enter the zone - you suggest this is an entrance to Seaview Drive - and where was your car in relation to these?

There seems little point looking for applicable law until these facts are in play.


Yes, I missed them. After returning to my vehicle and noticing the PCN, there were several other parked cars and we were all moaning about it to one another as they had missed the signs as well.
A passer-by then mentioned the signs and then when exiting Seaview drive - we noticed the signs.

There were absolutely no signs anywhere else near the point where I had parked the vehicle (12 seaview drive) - https://goo.gl/maps/gPz5jBXDHy1S3Ft49

I tried to use the law because surely the common knowledge nationwide was that you look for yellow lines, pavement sign posts, parking bay markings and any other parking restriction signage that inform you of any parking restrictions.



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 17:44) *
The Appellant said that there were no signs close to where the vehicle was parked. The Authority submitted that there is no need for signs in the zone. I disagree. Unlike Controlled Parking Zones which have road markings, a permit zone has no road markings. There should be a sufficient and appropriate number of repeater signs. (Adjudicator Mr Anthony Chan)


Good old Mr Chan, my thinking exactly i.e. were there signs 'close to where the vehicle parked' (these could be the PPA signs themselves, of course) and what was the council's response when this was put to them.

So OP, do not just wait for a NTO, there's leg-work to be done.

If you cannot revisit, then post this here because another poster might be able to oblige.

The matter depends upon your facts and no-one else's. If yours fit, then fine. But you must establish that fit, so pl deal with the issue of your car and its proximity to the PPA entry signs, and their location and orientation for that matter.


What leg work can be done? I have already received the NTO, I have posted all the documentation and evidence I have above.

There were absolutely no signs near where I parked - https://goo.gl/maps/gPz5jBXDHy1S3Ft49

And I cannot go back to the location as it's quite a distance from where I live.





QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 19:55) *
QUOTE (Nosy Parker @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 15:56) *
If I've understood it, o.willow is beyond the stage where representations can be made to the Council and the window for paying the discounted rate of £35 has now closed. If that's right, the sensible course is to wait for the Notice to Owner and appeal to the TPT.

The next action upon receipt of the Notice to Owner is to make representations to the council. The Notice to Owner has been received (it's in the opening post) and we now need to draft representations.



Yes, please.

The NTO (links below) was sent on 30/05/2022 so I have 28 days to send the reps.

https://ibb.co/mCHmj38

https://ibb.co/GWLThNP

https://ibb.co/C06zP02

https://ibb.co/d7dNCBR

I think I should focus on the no repeater signs? Not enough signage in the area where I parked?

It's also really sneaky of them as on that day, the first sunny Saturday in spring, the beach car park was closed. The roads were really busy and lots of people and families were all trying to access the public beach. But there weren't ANY signs where we had parked.
If you look on the pictures I posted and sent in my initial representations, there is nothing at all to indicate resident parking restrictions.

Nosy Parker
My mistake I read and wrote "Notice to Owner" but was thinking "Notice of Rejection". I've corrected my earlier post
cp8759
QUOTE (o.willow @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 22:41) *
There are no council pics of the PCN on Vale of Glamorgan's website.
...
Unless I'm not seeing something - there is no way to retrieve the PCN online.

So email pcn-query@wppp.org.uk and ask them to email you the pictures.
o.willow
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 8 Jun 2022 - 00:35) *
QUOTE (o.willow @ Tue, 7 Jun 2022 - 22:41) *
There are no council pics of the PCN on Vale of Glamorgan's website.
...
Unless I'm not seeing something - there is no way to retrieve the PCN online.

So email pcn-query@wppp.org.uk and ask them to email you the pictures.



Will do.
o.willow
Hi -

Had a quick reply, this is the email and the photographs I have been sent back.

"Good morning and thank you for your email.

Please see below, the photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time in question as requested.

Kind regards"

https://ibb.co/yfHTddH
https://ibb.co/8Xccdv7
https://ibb.co/JytjyC4
https://ibb.co/TmwsT0k
https://ibb.co/pK7z1vR

No photographs of the signage whatsoever.

hcandersen
There were absolutely no signs anywhere else near the point where I had parked the vehicle


IMO, you are overplaying this point because your expectation has been raised. There is NO legal requirement for repeater signs and no adjudication decision is going to change this. Instead the requirement is:

Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force.

and:

Item 5 of the Part 3 sign table:: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/5/made

and
“permit parking area”
an area—
(a)into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign provided for at item 5 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 5; and
(b)where any parking place within that area reserved for the use of the permit holders as indicated on that sign is not shown by markings on the road (whether or not an upright sign is placed next to, or near, such a parking place to indicate that only the permit holders in question may use the place)

not forgetting the advisory Traffic Signs Manual: pages 161-2 refer, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf

The entry signs may be supplemented by “permit holders only” signs shown in Figure 13‐32, used as reminders in the individual streets. Such repeater signs are not mandatory and might not be required at all in a short cul‐de‐sac

However, the TSM further states..

and might not be required at all in a short cul‐de‐sac sac or where parking by non‐permit holders is not likely to be a problem.

Of course it's a problem, visitors ( AKA townies) cluttering otherwise tranquil residential roads has clearly been issue in this quaint area.

Environmental sensitivities v good practice as regards the discharge of LATOR.

It's a lottery IMO at adjudication, therefore any challenge/reps must draw the council* on why repeaters are not placed.

* the traffic authority, which has this responsibility, and the enforcement authority are part of the same council, but don't expect the left hand and right hand (llaw chwith a llaw dde) to communicate.

Always assuming that the, as yet unseen, signs are correctly formatted and located.
o.willow
You're going to have to clear up what that meant / how that can help me because I'm struggling to understand it I'm afraid.

Are you suggesting that I should assume that I can't park somewhere and go looking for reasons why I can? Even when the biggest reason that I can park somewhere is that there aren't any signs or road markings telling me otherwise?

This doesn't need to be so absurd and convoluted because the reality is quite simple.

I parked my vehicle on a residential road without a single sign telling me not to near to where I parked the car. To my surprise, I received a PCN informing me that I was parked in a resident parking zone.

I then realised that when driving my vehicle into Sea view drive, I missed the Resident parking zone signs.

As human beings, we, unfortunately, tend to miss things, especially when our focus is on safely operating a moving vehicle.
When I am parking, I look to where I can park. Not when I'm still on the journey to my destination.

So, I'm not overplaying anything - it's what happened.

The general understanding to any motorist is to NEVER park somewhere with clear resident parking prohibition signs, double or single yellows or any other parking restriction signage on the pavement, or you'll receive a parking ticket.

But there was NOTHING anywhere near to where I parked.

If they are so keen to keep their residential road clear of day-trippers, then they should have put up additional repeater signs and/or resident parking bay markings. That's their responsibility, that's their duty and obligation if they wish to enforce those restrictions on the general public.







Michael Gibson
I think the simplest way to explain that the simplest reason why there are no signs near where you were parked is... because there likely doesn't need to be.

HCA's point about repeaters not being necessary if it's just a small cul-de-sac or if unlikely to be abused by non-locals carries a fair bit of weight, to me. It's clearly there purely to stop non-locals.

I'd give it 50/50 at adjudication.
MrChips
Seems to be some misunderstanding here.

My summary for what it's worth:

- there were no signs where you parked
- there was a sign at the entry point to the resident zone
- we haven't seen it and you are not in a position to return to take a photo so for now we have to assume it's compliant and is situated appropriately
- the authority are not legally obliged to include signs other than at the entry to the zone
- however they are advised to include repeaters, other than in small zones comprising one street/culdesac or where there is unlikely to be much visiting traffic [i.e. not relevant to your circumstances]
- there are some adjudicator decisions on record where appeals have been decided in favour of the motorist due to the absence of repeaters

So, it seems you don't have a get out of jail free card, but you have a fighting chance if you can convince an adjudicator the authority's absence of repeater signs is unreasonable and unjustified.

Hence, HCA's suggestion you put it to the authority to justify why they haven't done this here.

I've not gone to the trouble of checking the distance from your parking location to the zone entry sign, so am assuming it's a fair distance away and on a different street. The further away the more weight you could put on this argument.
hcandersen
+1.


and on a different street.

Sadly not, o/s 12 Seaview at whose entrance I understand one or more PPA signs can be found.

And OP,

Are you suggesting that I should assume that I can't park somewhere and go looking for reasons why I can? Even when the biggest reason that I can park somewhere is that there aren't any signs or road markings telling me otherwise?

I cannot help it if you do not accept what the law provides. And it's not targeting you, every motorist should be aware. PPAs are an awful addition to a council's armoury, but they are there. Only entrance signs are required to establish a zone and road markings are not only not required, they're not permitted for parking places subject to the PPA restriction.

Yes, it's possible in some cases to successfully argue that although the zone exists a council has created a zone of such size that the message should have been repeated. But any argument turns on its own facts, there is no simple rule such as if you're parked in a PPA more than 50m from a PPA sign and there's no other sign in view then you're in the clear.

If this is what you're seeking, you won't find it, sorry.
o.willow
QUOTE (Michael Gibson @ Wed, 8 Jun 2022 - 17:22) *
I think the simplest way to explain that the simplest reason why there are no signs near where you were parked is... because there likely doesn't need to be.

HCA's point about repeaters not being necessary if it's just a small cul-de-sac or if unlikely to be abused by non-locals carries a fair bit of weight, to me. It's clearly there purely to stop non-locals.

I'd give it 50/50 at adjudication.


But it's not a small cul-de-sac.

It's a residential road next to a large public beach in South Wales off the main coastal road.

If they wanted to stop non-locals parking they'd make sure there were repeater signs everywhere on the residential roads.

But they didn't. And it didn't stop me because I missed the bloody thing. So it didn't work. And I should not be punished for that.



[quote name='hcandersen' date='Wed, 8 Jun 2022 - 18:07' post='1716022']
+1.


and on a different street.

Sadly not, o/s 12 Seaview at whose entrance I understand one or more PPA signs can be found.


Sorry - where are the PPA signs? There weren't and aren't any.

https://ibb.co/VvWNrgn
https://ibb.co/vVyXD16
https://ibb.co/pwrtV5Y
https://ibb.co/86bCCVc

Images of the street on google maps.

Plus images of what I took of my vehicle and the road around it.

https://ibb.co/Hr8ZPkN

https://ibb.co/QPNwvqk

https://ibb.co/NyRD7V2

https://ibb.co/CMS46c0

https://ibb.co/3NprFtN

o.willow


I cannot help it if you do not accept what the law provides. And it's not targeting you, every motorist should be aware. PPAs are an awful addition to a council's armoury, but they are there. Only entrance signs are required to establish a zone and road markings are not only not required, they're not permitted for parking places subject to the PPA restriction.

Yes, it's possible in some cases to successfully argue that although the zone exists a council has created a zone of such size that the message should have been repeated. But any argument turns on its own facts, there is no simple rule such as if you're parked in a PPA more than 50m from a PPA sign and there's no other sign in view then you're in the clear.

If this is what you're seeking, you won't find it, sorry.
[/quote]

Sorry - what's a PPA?

I thought we were talking about a residents parking zone?

What most motorists are aware of are double yellow lines, yellow lines, resident bay markings, parking restriction signs and any other sign on a pavement informing a motorist what the parking restrictions are in a specific location.

How is a motorist supposed to be aware of parking restrictions when there wasn't signage where they were parking?

Michael Gibson
[quote name='o.willow' date='Wed, 8 Jun 2022 - 23:48' post='1716140']
I cannot help it if you do not accept what the law provides. And it's not targeting you, every motorist should be aware. PPAs are an awful addition to a council's armoury, but they are there. Only entrance signs are required to establish a zone and road markings are not only not required, they're not permitted for parking places subject to the PPA restriction.

Yes, it's possible in some cases to successfully argue that although the zone exists a council has created a zone of such size that the message should have been repeated. But any argument turns on its own facts, there is no simple rule such as if you're parked in a PPA more than 50m from a PPA sign and there's no other sign in view then you're in the clear.

If this is what you're seeking, you won't find it, sorry.


Sorry - what's a PPA?

I thought we were talking about a residents parking zone?

What most motorists are aware of are double yellow lines, yellow lines, resident bay markings, parking restriction signs and any other sign on a pavement informing a motorist what the parking restrictions are in a specific location.

How is a motorist supposed to be aware of parking restrictions when there wasn't signage where they were parking?





A PPA is a Permit Parking Area, which is where you parked.

The point is that there is signage where you parked, a short drive from where you parked (the entry signage). It doesn't need to be at the exact location that you parked.

There are other parking contraventions that don't require signage to be present next to where you parked (or, with some, any signage at all).

If you're currently at a stage where the full penalty is at play, I would proceed, with my appeal point being that there should have been repeater signage.

I'd still give it a 50/50 shot.
Incandescent
OP, people on here have given a lot of help, but the bottom line now is - are you going to appeal the matter all the way or not ? The only possible appeal argument is inadequate signage. You can argue all you like about not knowing about these parking things, but it is a very old principle of law that ignorance of it is no excuse.

You are now at the Notice to Owner stage, so the discount option is lost. Therefore there is nothing to lose by now submitting representations to the council on the basis that the signage for the restriction is inadequate. If they reject your reps, then it is a no-brainer to take them to adjudication, as the penalty remains the same. They may, however, re-offer the discount in which case you will have to decide what to do.

Entry to this development is by a single entrance off the main road, so to turn in, a motorists attention must be on making the turn safely. In your case a right-turn into the estate, so your attention will rightly be on oncoming traffic. It is easy to miss signs at an entrance to a permit parking-only area, that is why the recommendation is to install repeater signs. If these had been present, you would have lost the game, set, and match, but there are none. Not only this, but there are pedestrian paths to the beach, so once parked, you'd see no signs at all even when you return to your car and drive home. Councils are rather too fond of these permit areas, and try to get away with the absolute minimum expenditure when setting them up. The money then rolls in, because most people are unwilling to risk losing the discount option, so cough-up straightaway.
MrChips
OP, you have my every sympathy. I parked in one of these residents' zones near a hospital in a small culdesac and even then didn't spot it as I wasn't looking for the entry signs, they were quite small, and like you relied on there being no markings on the road/signposts where I parked. It was only by good fortune that a resident had put a sign on their gate to alert people to this restriction that I became aware and was able to move my car in time.

I also previously got a PCN on a turn off from a red route clearway which isn't required to be signed and looked to all intents and purposes like a relatively quiet residential street. With help from this forum I was able to beat it.

Alas these traps exist and sometime you just learn through bitter experience.

The best you can do is to appeal with the strongest arguments you can find and these have been illustrated in this thread. If you want to knock up a draft representation we can review it for you.
cp8759
Well you're at the NTO stage so you might as well challenge and ask them that, if they reject, please would they provide photos showing the signage at the entrance to the zone.

Post a draft here first.
o.willow
Hello all,

Thank you so much for the above.

I have drafted a representation below.

I'm not privy to legal terminology or letters so please amend/delete / make more concise and coherent as necessary:



To whom it may concern,

I am requesting a cancellation of the PCN because of an absence of repeater signs in the resident permit parking zone in Seaview Drive, Ogmore-by-Sea.

On 26/03/2022 I entered Seaview Drive, crossing busy onward traffic from the Main Road. I parked outside 12/13 Seaview drive to visit the public beach.

Where the vehicle in question was parked, there was a complete absence of any parking restriction notices, resident parking bay marking, residential parking zone signage or any other recognised yellow line markings on the road.

I also point out that my vehicle was parked at least 160 metres from the distance to the entrance of Seaview drive where the PPA signs are reportedly in view.

Due to this absence of repeater signs in the vicinity of where I was parked, I had no reasonable knowledge or awareness to expect that I was in contravention of any Resident Parking Zone / Permit Parking Area.

Therefore, I am appealing that the authority's absence of repeater signs is unreasonable and unjustified in this instance and I kindly request the cancellation of the PCN on these grounds.

Yours….
cp8759
Revised draft, I've softened it a bit because we're trying to persuade them to be nice and let you off:

------------

Dear Vale of Glamorgan Council,

I am requesting cancellation of the PCN because of an absence of repeater signs in the permit parking zone in Seaview Drive, Ogmore-by-Sea.

On 26 March 2022 I entered Seaview Drive, crossing busy onward traffic from the Main Road. I parked outside 12/13 Seaview drive to visit the public beach.

Where the vehicle in question was parked, there was a complete absence of any parking restriction notices, resident parking bay marking, residential parking zone signage or any other recognised yellow line markings on the road. I also point out that my vehicle was parked at least 160 metres from the distance to the entrance of Seaview drive where the PPA signs are reportedly in view.

Due to this absence of repeater signs in the vicinity of where I was parked, I had no knowledge or awareness of the restriction nor did I have any reason to believe the area was subject to parking restrictions.

I kindly request the cancellation of the PCN on these grounds.

Yours….
o.willow
Thank you cp8759.

Will send this off and report back on their response.

Much appreciate the time and effort by all on this.

Enjoy the heatwave smile.gif
stamfordman
It's quite a large zone with several streets - that's a point worth adding along with distance from entrance.

o.willow
Hi all,

I received the following rejection from the council earlier this week.

They attached two photos of the signs. One from a distance and the other up close.

It's incredulous to think that these signs are acceptable notice - especially when concentrating on turning into the road with oncoming traffic.

They are small, in two languages and are clearly best viewed as a pedestrian.

Their reasons for rejection completely ignore that I did not see the signs upon entry into Seaview Dv and therefore, because of the absence of repeater signs, had no knowledge of any resident's parking zone.

I've attached the pdf I received here:

https://docdro.id/2NPIw5x

(please let me know if the link doesn't work)

I will of course be appealing to the tribunal and will require your advice and help once more.

Many thanks!
cp8759
Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?
o.willow
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jun 2022 - 20:46) *
Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?



That would be very generous of you.

How would we go about that?
cp8759
QUOTE (o.willow @ Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 20:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jun 2022 - 20:46) *
Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?



That would be very generous of you.

How would we go about that?

I'll drop you a PM.
cp8759
stamfordman
Surprised they caved on this as they provided library pics in the rejection. I expect it's more to do with the lack of repeaters.
Incandescent
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 8 Jul 2022 - 20:07) *
Surprised they caved on this as they provided library pics in the rejection. I expect it's more to do with the lack of repeaters.

+1
A fairly large zone with a single entrance and no repeaters is a quite disgraceful arrangement, and fortunately they gave way.
Well done to the OP !
o.willow
Good afternoon all,

A great result indeed.

Justice for the motorist is sweet smile.gif fantastic that they gave way and common sense prevailed.

A special mention to cp8759 who very kindly represented me at the tribunal.

Much appreciate all your time and work for this and of course for believing/backing me.

Thank you to everyone else for their support and contribution.

Best of luck and the fight goes on!



stamfordman
QUOTE (o.willow @ Wed, 13 Jul 2022 - 16:17) *
A special mention to cp8759 who very kindly represented me at the tribunal.


It didn't go to the tribunal. The council chose not to contest.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.