I remember reading a PATAS report some years ago which stated that if a local authority failed to respond to any one of your letters within 56 days, then the council was deemed to have accepted your representations, and was therefore obliged to cancel the PCN.

the southwark document lists only five grounds for appeal. however, after southwark rejects your appeal, they are then obliged to deliver to you a patas form, which lists eight grounds of appeal. furthermore, the wording of southwark's five grounds do not match patas' wording.

"in my experience, the further one takes a pcn appeal towards patas, the more likely it is that the council's monkeys are going to make a bureaucratic error, which will cause patas to throw the council out on its ear." in other words, whether or not the offence was committed begins to become less relevant to patas if the council has made ANY bureaucratic error in their pursuit of the penalty charge.

RESULT ! happy to help. in my experience, the further one takes a pcn appeal towards patas, the more likely it is that the council's monkeys are going to make a bureaucratic error, which will cause patas to throw the council out on its ear. your appeal has proved this, as have many of mine. cool. with best wishes, michael x

bernie and voxlaic, you're great . best, loveablerogue

All that really matters is whether the PCN was issued because you were partly parked on the zig zag line, or for another reason. What is the exact wording of the offence ? Ask for a copy of the PA's attendance note, and photograph, if he took one. If he didn't take a photo, which these days is unlikely, it will be easier for you to appeal successfully, because then it's your word against his about EXACTLY where your tyres were. Indeed, if he did NOT take a photograph, you MAY wish to recreate the situation, and take your own, convenient photograph ;o). Not that I'm suggesting that you lie to PATAS, or anything. The fact that you work at any school is irrelevant to PATAS. All that matters is whether you were parked on the zig zags, thereby almost certainly contravening the Highway Code. On the other hand, the Council has a duty to ensure that its signposts and road markings are "clear, certain, reasonable, and fair." If I were you, I'd appeal it in any event, because by doing so, you've got nothing to lose. If you lose, you'll pay the £100 which you are currently obliged to pay in any event. However, in my experience, when the council reads your letter, they will probably reduce the PCN by half, to £ 50. It depends how far you want to take it. If you take it to PATAS with the photo of the sign, and perhaps your photo of your tyres, PATAS may well cancel the PCN in any event. As I say, you've got nothing to lose by taking it all the way to PATAS. Indeed, amongst the PCNs which are appealed, roughly 50% of them get cancelled. Talking of which, put this at the end of your letter : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the circumstances, I would suggest that your office cancels this PCN, or I shall be obliged to make representations to PATAS, which shall include * a map and photographs * of the confusing * signpost and road markings * , following which I shall be asking the Parking Adjudicator to condemn the council in relation to costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When the council sees that you will be asking PATAS to condemn them in costs, they may well back down completely. Let me know how you get on. Best, LoveableRogue * amend as applicable *

I've appealed dozens of parking tickets, so feel free to copy and paste ONLY the RELEVANT extracts from my most recent appeal into your letter . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You will recall that such a confusing combination of signage and road markings would, in PATAS' opinion, be: "liable to cause confusion to the motoring public." Indeed, I note PATAS' findings in similar situations: "As ever, many appeals have turned on the adequacy and legality of the signs giving notice of the restrictions. It is important that the Council should comply with its duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 to provide and maintain signs for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the (Traffic Management) order is made available to persons using the road." "Adjudicators strongly suggest that Authorities need to give careful consideration to what signs are required to ensure that motorists are fairly treated." "Authorities have a duty under Regulation 18 to place on or near the road 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. They are also subject to an overriding duty to act fairly towards members of the public." "Starkey v Hammersmith & Fulham shows the importance of the signs conveying fully to the motorist the conditions upon which they make use of... parking facilities." "The need for fairness applies to the signing of the parking regulation which must be clear, certain, reasonable and fair." "... not marked sufficiently clearly for it to be said that the restriction was correctly indicated and therefore no contravention occurred... A reasonable motorist would be uncertain as to the restrictions applicable to those parking spaces... The signage was inadequate. Appeal allowed." "The Adjudicator said that a reasonable motorist exercising reasonable care would be confused as to the exact status of the bays. There were no signs warning motorists of the unusual characteristics of the parking restrictions in the location. This was a recipe for confusion and unfairness. The Council had therefore failed in its duty to sign the restrictions fairly and properly. Appeal allowed."