Hi Chaps, Currently not in a "predicament" - well at least not as far as PATAS goes (yet) I originally posted the question because I'd heard (but couldn't at that time find) that there were only 6 grounds for appeal at tribunal stage and wondered what they were. I am confident that my rejection of the P CN is fine as the signage is missing and should it go to tribunal because the council refuse to back down, then the tribunal would agree with me that the signage is indeed missing. Interesting discussion though folks. Cheers Art (still not heard from the council btw)

This is a challenge to the original P CN. The 14-day 50% off period ends tomorrow from the original issue date of the P CN. Not got as far as the NtO yet - and hopefully, it won't get that far - but I'm happy to take it all the way to tribunal if necessary : ) Letter challenging the P CN included photos showing distinct lack of signage and CEO's attempt of providing proof of the contravention by photographing the restriction plate for the bus stop on the opposite side of the road, rather than the unsigned loading bay that I'd parked in! Art

Thanks Jamberson I'm hopeful of my challenge because the restriction on the bay that I parked in (as defined in the current TRO and not affected by any subsequent amendments) is different to the underlying CPZ (under which I was issued the P CN) and the restriction plate for the bay is missing. Sent my challenge by registered post and they received it 2 days later - at least here is an on-line squiggle on Royal Mail's Track and Trace saying someone signed for it. So far, the council haven't even acknowledged my letter. Is that normal? Art

Hi Michael, I'd found them - I was rather hoping they explained in more detail. Thanks for the reply. Take #7 as an example "The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid - the Order creates the contravention." What does 'the Order creates the contravention' mean?? In order to succesfully challenge a PCN at tribunal, you have to challenge on the specific grounds? Art

Hi Jamberson Post #14 in the following thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?385730-Taken-to-court-even-though-parking-fee-was-paid Art

Yep, let me do a quick search.... Art

Hi Folks, Apparently PATAS only allow six grounds for appeal - otherwise they throw out your appeal automatically. Have searched the PATAS website but cannot find any info on this. Can anyone provide a relevant link? Cheers, Art

Hi Sam, To my (uneducated) eyes, that looks like a great letter. Fingers crossed for ya. Art

Hey Sam, That sounds like a result. Don't get your hopes up just yet but it sounds very promising. Is there just one sign facing the wrong way - or is there only one sign? Seems that tribunals have been refusing challenges recently on what are viewed as "minor technicalities" - ie yellow lines incorrectly terminated or non-continuous because of a repair patch - as the "intention is clear". I'm hoping that in my particlar case I can argue that the intention isn't clear because without the sign (or indeed examining the TRO and remembering the restriction) you wouldn't know what the restriction was for that particular bay. Fingers crossed for ya, Art

Hi Sam, I can't claim any credit for the wording, that came from TheBogsDollocks. You will need to tailor it to your specific needs howeverr, I'd recommend getting hold of the relevant legislation if you can to check the sections that may be relevant. I don't think the 45 mins before parking was allowed will cut any ice I'm afraid, but I'm no expert in this As far as "playing dumb" - I don't know. It wouldn't hurt to say (a) you are a non-local and (b) it is a first-time offence, but Sheffield City Council only allow one informal challenge - so I'd be tempted to go in with any and all legal stuff, I'd try to find the Secretary of State's advice on the size of a CPZ if you can - perhaps the good experienced folk on this forum could help out? Art

Thanks Web, Art

Hi again Sam, One idea that you may be able to explore (no idea whether it will carry any weight or not) is the size of the CPZs. The Secretary of State suggests that a CPZ should include no more than around 12 streets and that it is unreasonable to expect someone to remember the parking restrictions when entering the CPZ if it is larger than this. Now Tower Hamlets have several distinct areas on their map and the zones of interest as far as you are concerned - because it looks like where you parked (the yellow star on the map below) is on the border between two zones - Zone A2 and Zone A6. Being charitable to Tower Hamlets and saying that Zone A2 has the regulations relevant to you, I've counted at least 44 roads in that Zone. If, as I suspect, Zone A6 applies (Zone 6 applying to the western side of Spital Street and Zone A2 applying to the eastern-side of Spital Street), then the above advice is even more in your favour, I count around 75 streets in Zone A6. You may be able to contest the underlying regulation of the CPZ on the basis of its size. Here's the map: Bogs (in a post on my thread) suggested adding the following to any letter of appeal: Furthermore, I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraph D5 provides guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s; D5 The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets. I’m informed that the CPZ I parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Bogs will probably be along shortly to offer better advice. He seems to know what he's talking about! Hope all of the above helps, Art

Thanks Jamberson for all your help and advice. I'll update the thread when I have some news. Letter contesting the P CN went off this morning by recorde d delivery. If they still want to persue it, I'll take it to a Traffic Tribunal Art

Don't know whether that is a regulation or simply guidance. The CPZ that I'm currently having problems with in Sheffield has at least 60 streets in the Inner Zone alone - and the CPZ signs are on the entrance to the much larger Outer Zone! It would be useful indeed if it was to be that the whole CPZ is invalid because there are far too many streets within it. Sheffield hasn't partitioned the Inner and Outer Zones as I've seen elsewhere (as indeen in this thread - Tower Hamlets). Here's a picture of Sheffield's CPZ. If you can't sleep tonight, have a go at counting all of the streets within the Inner and Outer Zones - or just the Inner Zone if you are in a hurry! Art

Hi queensclose Did you read my OP? RTWFP Art