I am still taking this to appeal. I have drafted an extensive legalistic letter to the council. I can make this a joint letter, if anybody else wishes to sign. Send me a private message with your emails, and I'll forward you the letter and include your PCN numbers in the complaint. I intend to let this get to appeal on principal, and will not accept a waiver of the fine without acceptance from the council that road side signs are necessary. My case is based primarily on previous case history of appeals where adjudicators have deemed signs necessary in order to provide adequate information.

Green and Mean makes a good point, which was to be my second line of attack. The bay where I parked was only divided from adjacent resident car bays by a single dashed line, not a double dashed line. A standard hours of operation sign was displayed for the car bays, implying similar restrictions in the motorcycle bay. I'm sure this is grounds for appeal. Also note that conversations between RBKC and the DfT allowing for signs not to be placed count for nothing if there is no authorisation backing this up. The council may be able to win superficially on a technicality, but judgements can be appealed, and at the highest level they will look at whether the original authorisation should ever have been given to the council; and this can be repealed. You would hope, in one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, justice would eventually prevail. Again RBKC would be afraid to let an appeal get to this stage as a loss to them would cost them dearly and possibly force them to return all the penalty charges they have stolen from unsuspecting motorcyclists under similar conditions. I'm still confident to fight on.

I'd point out that the authorisation granted allows for the modification of the word "DOCTOR" in diagram 1028.4 of the TSR 2002 to "M/C PERMITS ONLY". Since "DOCTOR" requires a sign, so should "M/C PERMITS ONLY". Add this to the "adequate information", "act in fairness" requirements, the fact that a "Permits Only" sign exists (660 if I remember correctly) and the precedent judgement stating that all restrictions should be signed and I believe the case is exceptionally strong. The default cannot be that the sign is not necessary as this goes against all other punishable parking restrictions in the TSRGD.

Guys, Thanks for creating this thread; I've been stung by the same completely unjust parking fine in a converted "m/c permits only" bay with absolutely no signage. I used to be a resident of K&C and parked in this bay several times. Now I'm a resident in Westminster (and just forked out my £150 for a permit there the day before receiving this PCN - though at least Westminster put up adequate signage and handed out leaflets for weeks before) and being completely unaware the new road markings and seeing no sign, was absolutely astonished to find a ticket on my bike when I returned. It is absurd, and seemingly an attempt to mislead the motorcyclist in order to collect revenues, not put up a sign when a bay changes from no restriction to a restriction punishable with cash penalties. Why would I even think of checking the road markings where I see other motorcycles parking and notice the m/c; it goes against 8 years of acquired experience of parking in the area. Surely the local authority would be obliged to make me aware of changes to the restictions by more visible means - this is what signs are for! I know of no other parking restriction for any other vehicle where is sign is not obligatory! If for some subtlety, a sign happens not to be necessary, as implied earlier in the thread, I believe there are still grounds to fight this case. Signs may not have been obligatory for free motorcycle bays, but there is an obvious asymmetry between not properly signposting a lack of restriction to signposting a restriction punishable by fines. Additionally, I have found a link elsewhere on the internet to other cases of appeals against PCNs due to inadequate signage: (Site won't let me post link until I have 5 posts, but can email it if people are interested) I Quote: The procedure to be followed by local authorities in signing restrictions is set out in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No.2489) (“the 1996 Regulations”). Regulation 18(1) provides: “Where an order relating to a 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 as long as the order remains in force.” The obligation under Regulation 18(1) of the 1996 Regulations goes further than merely placing the minimum signs required by the Regulations of 1994. Adequate information must be made available to the motorist in the particular circumstances of each location. Furthermore in exercising any of its functions under the statutory scheme, an authority must not only comply with the letter of the regulations : it also has a duty to act fairly. Following R -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560, per Lord Mustill : “Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. The Council’s duty in respect of traffic signs was considered by the Adjudicator in the case of Burnett -v- Buckinghamshire County Council (Parking Appeals Service Case No.HIW0003). He confirmed that any regulation of parking by a local authority must be brought to the attention of the motoring public by means of traffic signs. The regulations must be signed in such a way that the motoring public knows of the regulation. In addition not only must signs be present they must also comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No.1519) (“the 1994 Regulations”). Note the duty to fairness. Even if according to the TSRGD 2002 "M/C PERMITS ONLY" has not been specifically associated with a 660 sign, "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" has. An adjudicator would have to recognise that the omission was not in line with the spirit of the legislation and does not provide "adequate information". As such, on grounds of fairness the PCN cannot be upheld - in my opinion. Additionally, the simple fact that this has affected so many people is proof of the lack of adequate information! I intend to fight this all the way. If I end up losing £60, so be it, but I will make it as public as possible to highlight the injustice and the growing victimisation of motorcyclists.The council have much more to lose once one of these cases is officially overturned by an adjudicator. My suspicion is that the council will not let it get to tribunal, but I will do everything possible to make sure it does. It's good to know there are others out there as outraged as I was.