all, finally I was victorious!! After having challenge the four fines the second time and having received a generic response of rejection with no explanation on the reasons, as well as not having received copy of the fines that I have never received in the first place, I called the parking office to ask for these. As the guy was clearly not British and not even speaking clear english, I have asked to speak with a more senior officer... After an hour or so he called me back to communicate that the senior officer decided to cancel my fines as the response from the council was not correctly handled and the info requested not provided. Therefore I suggest everyone to keep pestering them and not to informally challenge these only once. Just for your benefit, I have spoken again twith the DfT to ask clarification on whether a written authorisation to omit a road sign was produced. The lady confirmed what G&M sadi a while ago. As the letter was authorising RBKC to use new road markings with wording not included in the TSRGD, the rules for the diagram 1028.4 contained in the TSRGD do not apply, hence they do not require any further approval. She said that the case is rather the opposite: if the DfT would have considered appropriate to have a road sign as well, this would have been mentioned in the letter... Still a mistery to me but now as I managed to get my fines cancelled I am happy! Good luck to all!! CVM

Garth, how are you doing with your PCN? Can you please send me your private email as we are trying to organise to complain to the council informing the press as well? thanks

All, for me is getting tricky...the reason is that I have managed to extend my £60 fine period till the 25...so I still can pay half of the entire amount, and having 4 fines to pay...I am tempted...as £480 are a lot of money! On the other side, I am reluctant to bend my head to such a policy. I still believe that there should be more information provided to people. RBKC apparently has sent letters at home to residents (i.e. who had a resident parking permit for m/c)...what is the point??? If you had a permit then you would have not been affected by this new policy!! ON the other side, they transformed what previously was an easy way of transportation in a nightmare. Not even Westminster is so bad. At least there you pay (a lot) but you get your place. IN K&C now you cannot find a single free space, and what about to all the people that do not live there but use the m/c for coming into it for work or shopping?? I mean is crazy. Have a tour of the borough during the day! All the permit bays are completely empty and the free bay packed!! Great scheme! The point i am not getting (although G&M had tried to explain it to me several times!) is that if they agreed to give them dispensation to not install a road sign as required for that road markings in the TSRGD, why this is not recorded in the letter of authorisation? I mean in my mind, probably too simple, it is different to say that the approved diagram 1028.4 can not only be used for the road markings Solo m/c , as a variation of the "doctor" one, but also for this new road markings, to saying that this modification do not require a road sign as required by the TSRGD with this type of diagram! The other curios thing is that nobody in K&C was able so far to tell me when the scheme get effectively in operation, which instructions were given to the CEO's, whether there has been a grace period and so on. Any smart ideas, please shout! I still think that now the only solution is involving the press, but that does not help with paying or not, it is only an kind of revenge. Ciao CVM

dear all, bad news... I have managed to sepak with the DfT officer today on the phone. She was very helpful and kind and she explained me that the road markings are legally as road markings. in this particular instance, RBKC had meetings with the DfT and convinced to agree them that as the new bays are 24/7 a sign is not required and superfluos. hence the new road markings are enough. She sent me the authorisation that is the same that RBKC sent me, where to me is not so clear that a road sign is not required. I have made the point that undert the TSRGD the diagram1028.4 requires a sign (diagram 660). She agreed with me but stated that as the road markings are not in the TSRGD, but an amendement then the rule does not apply and is decided case by case...rather strange to me, but unfortunately this is the situation... Now the only thing to do is attacking RBKC with the press to me. By the way the new system is really only a money maker and against promoting usage of motorbikes. today I came back home at 13 as I had to take a plane, and I had to go around sloan square and areas nearby for 30 minutes until I found a small parking for my bike. the situation is that the free parking spaces are not sufficient while the enourmous amount of permit bays are all completely empty. Today, in my hunt for a space, out of at least 5 permit bays, I counted 3 motorbikes!!! Are RBKC not obliged to review the scheme? is not compulsory that the scheme is experimental for the first 6 months as the new policy in Westminster? If you want to see copy of the letter, please go to No To Bike Parking Fees and look at the PCN section. It is attached the letter of authorisation from DfT. Now I am short of ideas on how to attack it...any suggestion is more than welcome.

All, just received the following answer from the DfT FOI: I am writing to verify that the Department has now completed its search for the information which you requested on 2 September. As you are aware, a traffic sign saying "M/c permit holders only" is not prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. I have checked our records and can confirm that, although we have issued an authorisation to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the use of a road marking for "M/C PERMITS ONLY", we have not issued an authorisation for a traffic sign for this use. In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act, all information is assumed to be releasable to the public unless exempt. The Department will, therefore, be simultaneously releasing to the public the reply to your request. Can someone interpret what exactly is meaning that they have not issued an authorisation for a traffic sign for this use? thanks

Dear All, a little update. First FOI officer reply attached below. The letter I cannot attach as it is not permitted here. Q1) I would like to receive information detailing under which law the Borough had removed all the pre-existing motorcycle post signs replacing these with road markings only. A:I can advise that all road markings and traffic signs used on the public highway must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (2002). However highway authorities may apply to the Department for Transport if they wish to deviate from the regulations. (Under Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). Q2) I would like to know if the new road markings applied to motorcycle bays have been approved and inserted in the TSRGD, and if not as I pretty sure, under with authorization such markings can be considered valid. A:I have attached a copy of the authorisation signed by the Secretary of State which allows the Royal Borough to use road markings stating 'M/C PERMITS ONLY' to designate our motorcycle permit bays. > as I said, reading it, they got dispensation to amend the writing of the road marking diagram 1028.4 approved in the TSRGD, but no mention about the road sign, that in my opinion should always accompany it. This is probably the most important thing to ascertain at this point! Q3) I* would like to obtain details of how and when the new parking restrictions changed, what notice was given to users of the bays (to the new Cliveden place m/c permit holders only bay in particular), for how long this notice was exposed and where, and finally if there was any amnesty for initial fines. A:I am reliably informed that the traffic orders became operational on 1st April 2008. There was a period of one month when Penalty Charge Notices were not issued to motorcyclists parking illegally in these bays. Instead a warning notice was attached to the motorcycle. PCNs started to be issued in June. I replied asking more specific info that he is gathering now, as far as he told me. the info I have asked are: - when the traffic order of the m/c permit bay in Cliveden Place has been enforced exactly and in reality? - which instructions were given to CEO's following the TO coming into force? - Was a grace period been granted? - if yes for how long? and where was this published? Which instruction the council gave to the CEO's during this period of grace? - Where all the works on the affeted bays completed by the 30 MArch 2008? and before - copy of the relevant part of the RBKC TMO under which this new motorcycle scheme has been explained - copy of the TMO approval if exist - copy of any letter from DfT authorising RBKC to omit road sign as requested by the TSRGD - copy of the notice given to the public audience as required by law. I would also like to know when and for how long the article where published - please explain how the council defines that the notice provided to public has been "adequate' - please confirm when the works in the m/c bay in Clieveden place started and finished - please confirm when the new scheme came into force officially - I would like to know how many fines have been produced by CEOs in the new m/c permits only bays in June, July, August and September (So far) of the current year and how many of these have been paid within 14 days without any challenge and how many have been challenged by the receiver Now, in the meantime, I have received 3 identical letters refusing my 3 challenges, all with the standard refusal paragraph not even filled in correctly; "Further consideration has been given to your case, however, we are unable to cancel the PCN. We replied to the points raised in your initial correspondence dated (date of the letter received) and I have enclosed a copy of our response (dated) for your information". The problem is that they have forgotten to attach the mentioned letter with the responses explaining why the refused. Can I appeal on this fact? Basically they have refused without replying to my letter, or at least not providing me the reply. Let me know

PongO, welcome to the small but growing group of "RBKC A-Team" where for A you can read Angry... At least now we are in 3 with exactly the same problem. For info of this forum, I am still waiting for an answer to the further requests I made to FOI office at RBKC. So far the special authorisation received seems not to imply anything about the permission not to install the road sign. HK01 - can you confirm it after the further opinion you have asked on that? I will read the TSRGD regulation mentioned by Ting tonight. speak to you soon

Ting, have no time now. But read also reg.24, that is saying the opposite. There are also others in the TSRGD, part II, Annex E implying that raod sign and traffic marking goes in couple. Look again tonight CVM (male)

Thanks in advance for the support. However, even assuming that they are right, and I would be surprised that RBKC does it wrong, do not you think it is somewhat illegal that you change an accustomed practice of having both road sign and road markings indicating special designed parking bay, without explicitly informing the public opinion of it? I mean, I am not aginst the fact that the road sign can be disposed, but if they would tell and change all the bays, then we would all know and not expect to see one. It is like parking in a road with no road markings on the boundary. By law you can as it is not regulated, even if impeding the traffic. In fact there is one street near Notting hill where you can do it, or at least there was as there was no road markings on the street. Here the principle is similar, you might change the writing of the road markings but if there was a road sign before regulating the bay you expect to see the new one to indicate that the works are finished and the new scheme in place...

Dear G&M, apologies if my reply was a bit rushed but I had the impression you do not want to get the point I am trying to make, or perhaps my english is not good enough to explain it properly. I have never said that the road markings were put overnight, or at least i did not mean that. What I am saying that I, as well as other residents (three at least that I have met) were misled as we were expecting to see a new road sign (diagram 660) to be installed as well exactly where it was the road sign before the works! therefore, at least on my case, after having monitored the bay for a few days, looking for any sign of change that was not anywhere near the bay (I have not seen a single notice from the council nearby) and not having seen any fine/warning notice in ANY of the scooters parked there (and please note that the bay used to be full every day, not like now that there are only three scooters, one of which receiving a fine every day) I concluded that until a new sign was up the new scheme was not valid. Apologies if I do not scan newspaper for parking changes every single day, and if I go on the RBKC only sometimes, but the information provided were not informative enough, that is it. It might be that RBKC did comply with all it is required under the law, but still a lot of people got tricked. Why did I not received a single fine or a warning notice in all July and part of June if the scheme was enforced, as they implicitly state in their website since 1 April? Two different officer kee saying that warning notice were issued...to who??! not a single one in at least two different bays for all June/July and beginning of August. Now as you can see the point I am making is different and still I have not received anything that proves me wrong. By law, under the TSRGD the diagram 1028.4 needs to be installed together with diagram 660. That is in fact the case in all London. Now, if you want to change it, you might get it, but at least special notice should be given about it as a normal person, looks for the road sign to udnerstand if you can park in that bay or not, and not at road markings only, except for few of them (e.g. single yellow, double yellow or red lines). I hope that this time i was clearer. And in anycase thanks again for your useful suggestions that I took on board. We probably have a different opinion and the fact that we are all busy in London and often travelling for work should be considered in implementing new schemes, and not relying into "local press". By the way, can someone illuminate me which newspaper is "local press"?? thanks

Ting, not sure how I can attach it here. It is a pdf file. However, if someone knows how to do I can post it to them or he can explain to me. Dear G&M, it appears that you are here just to enjoy on other's problem...not very helpful my friend. By the way, not sure what you refer to as the road markings "m/c only" does not exist or at least is not included in the diagram I am talking about relevant to this problem... check below 023113bk.gif So instead of being destructive, tell us something useful with the reference to find the rules you are talking about... By the way, FYI I am going to do the permit as I have no other choice apart selling my bike or move flat...in K&C without it is quite hard to park now. In reality I am not against having dedicated resident parking, and yes £32 is not a lot, I might manage to survive paying these...the point though here is different. They implemented a new scheme giving very poor information, although you were aware of it, without even indicating when exactly the scheme was come into force and without issuing any warning to the scooter parked in previous free bay being transformed. IT is only about that. And I am sure, that in your immense knowledge, once in your life you will be in the same situation and probably will understand why we are all so upset about. Westminster, for example, although implemented a much worse policy, hs at least clearly informed all users on how to aviod being unuseful fined, providing clear info on the website, giving warning tickets to scooters parked in the very first few days, distributing little hand-outs explaining what was changing and how to proceed, and getting clear signs nearby informing of the upcoming change. So can we please try to be helpful here? thanks

all, I am effectively getting confused. With all my patience we are talking about TMO and TMA and frankly speaking I do not know the difference... As far as I understood K&C has used the TMO or at least that is waht they are saying in the website, withouth though giving any possibility for the viewer to read these, unless going there and asking questions. However, I got today a letter from the FOI of RBKC that is the secretary of state approval of using the road markings "M/C permits only" as an amendment to the wording already included in the TSRGD diagram 1028.4. From my poor law understanding though they do not mention that these can be installed alone without a road sign (diagram 660). Unless this is a different letter. I have therefore asked for this clarification. I would love to post here the letter but not sure if under the copyright I am allowed, as some advice interpreting it would be useful. However, being not the only one that got misled by the 'poor information' from RBKC I believe that this should make reflect. I mean, I have a free bay at five minutes from home, and the only reason why I have not parked there is becuase I was sure that the traffic order was not yet valid as the road sign was missing (As this is the rule in the entire london apart these new bays). I have also checked from their website and noticed that their initial intention of increasing both free parking while creating new resident parking has not been pursued! They have introduced: 101 new permit bay 78 existing free bay converted into permit bay 111 free existing bay left 4 new free bay So in essence they have reduced of 39.2% the existing free bays to create loads of permit bays! that suggests to me that this policy is practically forcing residents to buy a parking permit! infact now parking for free has become very hard, at least around where I live... Also, reading the extract from G&M, they are talking about a motorcycle permit of £18 per year (that was the cost before for buying a parking permit for a bike), while now, only for parking in these permit bay is £32 or £80 for a full resident permit... Any suggestion how to take it forward?

Dear Lamma, can you please explain better your comment as I have not understood the point you are raising? thanks in anycase for all the useful advices you gave us in this thread.

Hi, you dhould ask to RBKC under the FOI 2002 right to see the TMO and the exemption letter they apparently got from the DfT not to put up the road sign. I am also going to ask about the coverage in the local press as they said they did. Strangely enough there is no indication on when the new scheme has started in their website. They say 1st April but in most of the bays by that date the works was not even finished or started. I have checked their press release and from Aug08 back to Oct07 there is not a single one announcing the change or when the new scheme was coming into force. I think we should try to get together as well as other people in our same situation as the borough behavior has clearly been misleading on our expenses. ciao. Send me you private email in the message I have sent you before

ok. thanks for your suggestion. I will try however I still found wrong that such a change is not published by a new sign. Why are parking permit signs, as well as pay and display signs, posted in every parking? Becuase it is important to let someone know the rules applied to that bay. I do not think it is right to presume that everyone has access to internet and read the borough news, or read the newspaper to check if any change is going to apply in your area. I can assure you that there was no evident sign posted nearby the bay explaining of the change. Thanks